Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 81

The Conservative path to victory in 2024

By
Jake Dibden
-
Image Credit: Sergeant Tom Robinson RLC/MOD/Open Government Licence version 1.0 via Wikimedia Commons

With the next General Election on the horizon (betting markets currently place the best odds on somewhere between October and December 2024), the attention of the media and much of the politically minded public has turned to the question: how do the Conservatives intend to fight a campaign that current polling and smart money say they’re almost guaranteed to lose? In the run-up to this week’s party conference, new government policy announcements have turned to two major fields that the Tories appear to intend to fight the next election on – immigration and climate change, or more specifically a complete reversal of recent policy on the two.

The question many in and out of the party, myself included, are thus left asking is the following. How sound a strategy can it be to completely U-turn on government policy of the last four years, let alone to fight an election on it?

Whilst one can sense the mystical hand of the great minds that brought you notable Conservative victories in 2015 and 2019 in this sudden reversal, the logic behind it is quite clear – the Conservatives know that they will not win new votes, but they also do not need to. Some electoral models suggest that even a lead of only 4% (38% to 34%, a substantial fall from 2019), would be enough to secure the Conservatives a majority. They therefore think that they have identified two policies they can use to mobilise the traditional Conservative bases of rural and semi-rural voters, and especially the elderly, as well as their important 2019 swing voters: those in formerly industrial constituencies, those without university degrees, and those who supported Brexit. These are the demographic groups that traditional wisdom have assumed to be the most sceptical of immigration and climate change policy. These policies are designed to prevent defections, especially to the Reform Party; both of the last YouGov VI polls place this defection rate at 16% of 2019 Conservative voters, compared to 13% and 12% defecting to Labour.

That being said, these groups are, if not comparatively then at least nominally, generally quite progressive of both issues anyway. The Home Secretary’s assertion last Tuesday that being discriminated against for being gay is not sufficient to claim asylum, is not likely to be well met by voters, even those traditionally sceptical of immigration. According to the World Values Survey, “low” acceptance of homosexuality in the UK stands at only about 19-20% of those with “low” incomes or “lower” education levels, whilst rates of high acceptance were consistently high regardless of age group. ONS data suggests people of all ages, levels of qualification, and income are consistently very concerned about climate change, and unified behind the commitment to net zero before 2050, or “even earlier”. The point being that the hills on which the government seem intent on dying on may not be as fertile ground as they had hoped.

So, what might be a better campaign strategy?

First, one has to accept that there is no policy the government can propose that will fix any of the problems the country faces today.  Based on that assumption, on January 4th, the Prime Minister set out his five priorities for 2023 and asked the public to judge him on them. What was smart about them was that, with the exception of the fifth (stop the boats – a policy which is not necessarily opposed to immigration in the same way that the government have turned over the summer), they were all factors which were likely to improve regardless of government action – to halve inflation (at the time this stood at about 9%, just over 10% excluding housing), grow the economy, reduce debt, and cut NHS waiting lists. In the case of debt reduction and NHS waiting lists, both were likely to continue to improve as the country recovered from the effects of the pandemic, without the influence of the government (and public understanding of national debt is notoriously bad, meaning measures such as the debt-to-GDP ratio, and the current deficit rather than nominal debt were likely to distort this even further).

The beauty of this message however, lay in its first two points – to grow the economy, and to halve inflation, both being macroeconomic factors almost entirely beyond the influence of the government, and both of which are almost guaranteed to improve the globe over. As the world recovers from the dual inflationary shocks of the Russo-Ukrainian war (and its effects on food and energy prices), and the supply chaos of China in 2022, so too is the inflation rate virtually guaranteed to reach more manageable levels (with the 12-month rate already down to 6.7% CPI). Similarly, “growing the economy” – i.e having a GDP growth rate of more than 0%, or literally not being in recession – was not a particularly high bar to set. In short, by setting laughably achievable economic goals and hoping that the public (whose main electoral concern at the moment remains the economy), would lack the economic know-how to understand the complete lack of agency the Conservative government had in these positive trends, was a remarkably sound electoral strategy, or at least one which gave them the best chance at winning a tough battle. Besides having the added benefit of not tying the government to policies they may come to regret, confidence in throwing themselves at the mercy of macroeconomic trends should also be buoyed by current growth and inflation; the Bank of England forecasts that inflation should break 5% by the end of this year, and return to its 2% target in the first half of 2024, whilst the BCC estimated growth for 2023 to finish at 0.3% and 2024 at 0.4% (the OECD estimates are slightly higher), which is slow but importantly meets the target of growing.

And this economic chicanery can be applied elsewhere too. At the Liberal Democrat conference this week, Ed Davey scorned the Conservatives for sending interest rates soaring – of course interest rates are beyond the control of the Conservatives but this speaks to my point as a whole – a point on which it is laughably easy for the Conservatives to retort something about helping savers. Over the last year, the FTSE 100 is up only 1.46% and 4.72% over five years, whilst the FTSE 250 is down in both measures. This ultimately means that rising interest rates, whilst obviously punishing borrowers, means that traditional savings accounts are competitive investments for the first time in over a decade. 

Overall the party appears to have spent much of the weekend working its current strategy with the more hard-line of the party claiming that multiculturalism has failed in Britain, and some even courting Nigel Farage as a possible member. That being said, I know which campaign I’d rather hitch my bandwagon to.

Image Credit: Sergeant Tom Robinson RLC/MOD/Open Government Licence version 1.0 via Wikimedia Commons

A manifesto for climate education

By
Olivia Boyle
-
Watercolour sketch of the Radcliffe Camera and students protesting holding placards beneath.
Artwork by Amelia Dovell

The Zoom screen flitters from darkness to the gradual clarity of humanoid pixels. I am looking at the official face of tomorrow. As the Mock COP28 delegate and I launch our discussion of a manifesto against the existential threat of a world overheating, “all that is solid melts into air.” (The Communist Manifesto, p.218)

Molly Scrase-Kings is a third year biochemist at Hertford College. While some may have spent the summer jet-setting and globetrotting in the name of life experience, Scrase-Kings was collaborating with hundreds of youth leaders in the name of saving the planet. At Mock COP28, the Oxford biochemist and the team of young delegates solidified a manifesto for climate education. 

Someone’s gotta do it. And infernal hell knows it ain’t going to be the University of Oxford.

A bandwidth away from me, in a seat of climate progressivism is Molly Scrase-Kings. After completing work for the conservation charity, Raleigh International, Scrase-Kings was encouraged to apply for this conference of young people tasked with coming up with a plan for global climate education. She explained to me that her journey from Oxford biochemistry to UK delegate at Mock COP28 was detached from the University.

Before going into the details of her time at the conference, I was interested in the extent of Oxford’s involvement in Scrase-Kings’ path to Mock COP28. 

“Did you discover the Mock COP28 opportunity thanks to Oxford?” I asked. A firm “no” followed. 

“Oh, Ok. But, Raleigh International came from your tutor or the Careers Service emails, right?” I followed up hopefully. 

“Well, no.” 

And so, I found myself enquiring – some four minutes into our eighteen minute discussion – “have you at all found out about anything to do with conservation or climate justice through the University?” 

“Um, no. Not really.” 

There you have it; those words were floating in the metasphere of our Zoom call. It was final. The University of Oxford, among the world-leading universities in earth sciences research, had had no hand whatsoever in taking one of its own from dreaming spires to pioneering international climate policy. 

Scrase-Kings, therefore, is an example of the student will, untarnished by university-based, ‘adult’ involvement, to contribute actively to improving our prospects against the climate crisis. 

This will was to be exercised at Mock COP28 where the primary concern, as Scrase-Kings explained to me, was to come up with a rejuvenated manifesto for tackling the crisis that the adult world’s tired policies seem to perpetuate. Mock COP28 presented a unified youth statement created by delegates from across the globe to education ministers and climate policy representatives in order to “really try to raise ambition for climate education in all of these countries,” as Scrase-Kings summarised. 

Photo credit: Molly Scrase-Kings

The biochemist said: “we’re told we’re the generation that should sort this out. We’re going to have to deal with it at the worst level. And yet we’re not supported to have the skills to deal with it or even the ability to deal with just the anxiety of it.” Mock COP28 is not a replica of the ‘adult’ version but a conference on the integration of climate crisis management into the lives of young people in the most common way known to them: through their education. 

Climate education is becoming increasingly concrete as a result of youth campaigns such as Mock COP28. But it’s a branch of education that is absent from these hallowed halls of learning. It could be a blameless move from Oxford. Ultimately, it’s the government’s “shoehorning of climate education” into pre-existing policies of youth engagement, as Scrase-Kings observed, that gives places like Oxford the excuse to not prioritise – at least consistently – climate education. For the deniers, climate education is perhaps a product of the “tofu-eating wokerati” and for the others, this existential threat is debilitatingly frightening. We’re in an unhelpful culture of stalemate and a relentless lack of progress makes for boring education.

Learning at Oxford, Scrase-Kings said: “we need to equip ourselves for the changing world and to ultimately change the culture around climate education. But I haven’t seen that in my degree and I haven’t seen it in my friend’s degrees really at all.” Is this Oxford’s fault or a governmentally encouraged antipathy towards climate education?

Molly Scrase-Kings thinks that we’re at a point where climate education “should be threaded into every subject.” A poll conducted by Cherwell found that 44% of participants strongly disagree with the statement that “the climate crisis comes up frequently with tutors/teaching staff or in lectures/tutorials”. Indeed, 63.4% of participants are either dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied with the University’s response to the climate crisis. 

Where respondents were less uniform, however, was in stating where responsibility lay for leading action against climate change. Should we bother holding the University accountable when students should be leading the response anyway? Cherwell poll respondents were level in agreeing that the University has more responsibility than students to act (23.1%) and being neutral on the balance (28.8%). 

To the Mock COP28 delegate, Molly Scrase-Kings, “Oxford has a massive responsibility. It is a full front runner, and it should be a leading role model, not just in academia.” Currently, however, it appears that the climate crisis is not confronted regularly enough even in the subjects where you would expect it to be. Scrase-Kings continued: “I’ve heard so many complaints that there’s not enough diversity for environmental economics. And there’s not much in biochemistry at all.”

In Cherwell’s poll, other students reflected on being dissuaded from action against climate change not by academia but by the rigorous nature of Oxford’s student activism. One respondent wrote: “I do find Oxford activism quite intense; it has an established wrong and right way to deal with issues and I find it intimidating.” There is no doubt that activism is student-led at Oxford. Scrase-Kings said that from the University “I see glimmers [of action], but it’s really student led and student pushed.” It being so student-heavy and with only “glimmers” of University support, it’s perhaps no wonder that the activism scene is intense and demanding. 

As you go higher up, support for tackling the climate crisis evaporates further. Molly Scrase-Kings told Cherwell she is beginning work with SOS-UK to fill in the gaps in the ambitious (quixotic?) plans for climate education announced by the DfE last year. Which are, as Scrase-Kings put it, a “bit late” anyway. 

The plans, once again, are symptomatic of a government that is just a tad too busy to deal with the climate crisis. They detail a hollow programme of distributing learning resources in “carbon literacy training” (whatever that means!) to every nursery, school and college by 2025. This will be enabled by the work of people like Molly Scrase-Kings at SOS-UK and the reward for such selfless charity will undoubtedly be reaped solely by No 10. Yet again, this policy appears as fodder for the government to shirk responsibility and could explain why leading institutions like Oxford aren’t doing very much leading in the field of climate education. Should they have to if the heads of the nation aren’t bothering? 

Yet, none of this really answers the question why well over half of the Oxford students participating in Cherwell’s survey remain dissatisfied with the University’s engagement with the climate crisis. What is it exactly that is holding the University back? 

After André Breton, Diego Rivera and Leon Trotsky, a condition of the construction of a manifesto is understanding that “without exaggeration never has civilization been menaced so seriously as today.” This is understood widely by the students of Oxford; they have resorted to teaching themselves with the launch of the termly ‘School of Climate Change’ (Oxford Climate Society). 

For now, it would seem students have the power. Mock COP28 was hopeful: “the summit showed me [Molly Scrase-Kings] the power we can have when we collaborate and communicate across borders.” The young delegates came up with a manifesto for climate education. It commits to a form of climate education where, as the Mock COP website states, students “teach the teacher.”

Of course, 55 years on from the Mai ’68 student protests, if we’ve learnt anything at all, it’s that students must be the teachers of change. 

Students of the world don’t appear to have much choice other than to unite!

Protests at the Students for Life Freshers’ Fair stall include two SU sabbatical officers

By
Bintia Dennog
-
Image credit: Bintia Dennog

CW: abortion

The ‘pro-life’ Students for Life society has once again been the cause for protests at the Student Union Freshers’ Fair. One protestor held up an “Abortion is a Human Right” sign in front of the stall, while two sabbatical officers – the VP Activities and Community and the VP UG Education and Access – joined in, holding up an SU infographic about abortions. 

In previous years there were similar protests, with various student societies criticizing the stand. In 2021, protestors also took the stall apart and threw away its contents. The Student Union has previously also attempted to add trigger warnings to stalls that students may find distressing.

The protestor, who wished not to be identified, told Cherwell that they had been in front of the stand for roughly one and a half hours. They stated: “I’m here standing outside the Oxford Students for Life stall at Freshers Fair because I don’t think they should be here, and because I think people should be aware that there is opposition to this in Oxford.”

“We’ve had a really positive response from students coming past. So many people thanking us for being here and that really shows why we need to be here: to show the students, show the Freshers that really so many of us are welcoming and do believe they deserve the right to an abortion, even if a few of them don’t.”

They said that the stallholders have “interacted with us a lot”, adding that “they’ve been very friendly.”

In a statement to Cherwell the SU stated: “Oxford SU is a supporter of the right to peacefully protest and the right of students and groups to hold diverse philosophical beliefs in line with the law. Both groups of students were able to excercise [sic] those rights this afternoon.”

Students for Life told Cherwell: “Numerous people of all ages and positions in the university approached our stall this year to sign up, thank us for being there, express appreciation and support for what we do, or ask how they can access the Student Parent Support we offer. All the conversations we had at our stall, including those with people who disagreed with our position, were insightful, respectful and valuable (we hope to both sides). Because of this, we are saddened by the fact that, in the eyes of some, our presence requires protest.”

“What is more, in light of recent years’ events, we find it regrettable that SU officers deem it acceptable to behave in such an explicitly political manner. Nevertheless, we support and respect others’ rights to voice their views and protest peacefully, as we do our own.”

The Winners and Losers of the Men’s Grand Slams 2023

By
Krishna Gowda
-

The 2023 men’s tennis calendar certainly had fans anticipating big things, with fresh, young blood threatening to disrupt the status quo and upset the tennis hierarchy by challenging the top players. With the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open running throughout the year on three different surfaces, some players justified their ambitions of deep runs and slam victories, marked with strong performances, whilst others fell victim to shock losses in a mixed year for tennis’ elite. Below I discuss the winners and losers on tennis’ biggest stages in 2023:

Winner: Novak Djokovic

The biggest winner beyond any doubt, on the men’s tour this year in terms of slam performance. Djokovic’s imperious displays on the court resulted in three slam wins, with only Alcaraz’s five-set Wimbledon victory preventing Novak from achieving the elusive calendar slam. His supremacy was underlined by total domination in the other three finals, where he won 9-0 in sets against three opponents who have been touted as a new generation of champions. Even at the staggering age of thirty-six, Novak is not to be usurped and his trademark return game and mental strength have enabled him to claim a record-breaking 24th men’s singles slam, a record he has made little secret of wanting to hold, with his command showing little sign of ceasing.

Winner: Carlos Alcaraz

The only man who stood between Djokovic and a calendar slam this year and he is the potential successor to inherit the throne. Whilst only attaining one slam could be cynically regarded as an underachievement for Carlos, the numbers don’t tell the full story. Skipping the Australian due to injury before being swept aside by Novak in the semis at Roland Garros in a cramp-afflicted match, the 20-year-old admitted to nerves affecting him physically and mentally, a reminder of his rawness and inexperience at this level despite the hype. Despite this, success beckoned at Wimbledon; unfazed by the ghosts of Roland Garros, he held his nerve to overcome Djokovic in a thrilling five-setter, winning his second major title. Whilst he failed to defend his US title, a semi-final loss to an impressive Medvedev shouldn’t discredit his year at all and next year promises even greater things for Alcaraz.

Winner: Ben Shelton

Shelton has been the dark horse of the men’s tour, both winning plaudits and drawing criticism for his performances and certainly creating a media frenzy. A monstrous serve combined with an effective volley game and heavy groundstrokes catapulted him to the quarters at the Australian Open, with Alcaraz stating after their match later in August that Shelton hit the ball harder than anybody he had played against. Arguably, a lack of exposure at the elite level contributed to early-round exits at the French Open and Wimbledon before Shelton capped off the year on hard courts again at his home slam. He endured a seriously difficult run, facing four former slam semi-finalists, before coming up against Novak in the semis, who seemed to take exception with Shelton’s vigorous fist pumps and efforts to rouse both the crowd and himself. Djokovic made his sentiments clear at the end of the match when he mocked Shelton’s celebration, a ‘dialled-in’ phone gesture which Novak imitated, offering a frosty handshake. Nevertheless, a stellar year from Shelton yielded two runs to the quarters at minimum in his first full year on tour, a seriously impressive introduction.

Loser: Casper Ruud

It may be a potentially controversial take to suggest that Ruud has had a bad year, especially considering that he reached the French Open final, and dispatched formidable opponents such as Rune and Zverev en route. Although he was seen off by Novak comfortably, his run here promised a fruitful year. However, Ruud fell in the second round of the other three slams to opponents that should have been beaten by a player of his rank and calibre. His loss of form has been startling and he has struggled to find consistency throughout the year, resulting in very early-round exits, with players exposing severe vulnerabilities in his game. Ruud admitted that he needed to play a more aggressive style and hopefully adopting one will enable him to bounce back and have a more successful 2024 season.

Loser: Felix Auger Aliassime

It’s been a dire year for Felix at the slams, who suffered similar issues to Ruud – a severe lack of form and consistency. The twenty-three-year-old has been heralded for years as a possible successor who could win slams and lead the next generation, with his potential underlined by the addition of Toni Nadal, Rafa’s uncle and coach, to his coaching team last year. This faith was renewed by a strong 2022 season, where he won four titles and became just the third man to take Nadal to five sets at Roland Garros, promising a rewarding 2023. A fourth-round exit in Australia this year was an adequate result, albeit to a player on paper he should have beaten, but this was followed up by three successive first-round losses in the other slams, interspersed with other early round defeats in lower-level tournaments, suggestive of mentality issues too. A loss for him on his birthday at his home tournament to a much lower-ranked player in August epitomised his season and a break in the slams may be beneficial for helping him reset mentally.

Loser: Jannik Sinner

Branding Sinner a loser in the context of the grand slams this year is extremely harsh on the one hand; after all, a semi-final and two fourth-round runs are pretty similar results to Shelton, whose year has been a success. However, the relative ambitions of the players act as a key factor, and by Sinner’s account, it has probably been a somewhat underwhelming year for him. Sinner has been twinned with Alcaraz as the other potential heir to the throne once the older generation retires, with their rivalry compared to Federer and Nadal’s. However, whilst Alcaraz won his second slam, Sinner’s inability to make it count in the big moments has hindered his progress, underlined by his Wimbledon semi-final straight-set loss to Novak, whom Alcaraz overcame in the final. Sinner only bettered one slam result from last year, underperforming in the rest, leaving the door ajar for even newer talent like Rune to establish themselves as a stronger prospect. He is still an obvious candidate for future slams, but at present Sinner needs to take it a step further to match Alcaraz’s level and prevent him from getting left behind.

Image Credit: smarch0987 // CC0 1.0 DEED via Flickr

“Comedy is humanity’s highest art form”: In Conversation With David Mitchell

By
Freddie Evans
-
Courtesy of David Mitchell

Freddie Evans and Sophie Magalhaes interview David Mitchell about the enduring appeal of “Peep Show”, insights into panel shows and improvisation, his new book “Unruly: A History of England’s Kings and Queens,” and advice for aspiring actors.

David Mitchell has been a reassuring fixture on British television screens for over two decades. You’ll most likely be familiar with his face and characteristic wit on display in his appearances on a variety of beloved British panel shows like “Would I Lie to You”, the popular series “Peep Show”, which he co-created and starred in, or his witty and insightful Observer column. Beyond his creative pursuits, Mitchell’s passion for history often influences his work, making him a unique and multifaceted figure in the world of arts and entertainment. His new book on the English monarchy, “Unruly”, was recently released on September 28.

You’ve had a successful career in both comedy and drama. How do you approach balancing these two genres, and do you prefer one over the other?

“I definitely prefer comedy. I think comedy is the best thing. I think it is humanity’s highest art form. I suppose in terms of performances, I haven’t done straight drama – most of the things I have done, there is something funny about it. I would probably make the argument that there aren’t many great dramas that are absolutely devoid of humour – a bit of it really helps. I would put myself as a comedian first and foremost.”

You’ve had a long-standing partnership with Robert Webb; from Peep Show to your comedy duo work. How important is comedic collaboration?

“It certainly helps. There are different forms of artistic expression, some of which you can do on your own, others of which you can’t. There is stand-up comedy, which I have never done – a solo form of comedy that you can craft on your own. Television comedy or drama, or any form of broadcasting, is a team thing. You need lots of people to make it happen – lots of people working hard to bring a television programme together, and you do well to remember how much you rely on the other people.

In terms of writing and performing, Rob and I found it incredibly helpful to not be on our own – especially at the start. It hugely helps – you are just massively less likely to be totally wrong about a comedic notion if one other person says, – No, I like that.”

Comedy often addresses societal issues and challenges. How do you see the role of comedy in commenting on or addressing important topics, and do you believe there are any boundaries when it comes to humour?

“The thing about comedy is you never know how it will go down. I don’t think there are any subjects which are inappropriate for comedy, but there are definitely jokes that shouldn’t have been made. Ultimately, it is an art form that is entirely justified or otherwise based on whether or not people laugh and like it.

Comedy should push boundaries. We, as a species, have an impish nature: we want to say the things we are told we shouldn’t say just for the rebellious thrill of it. Comedians will always go into those arenas, and it is a difficult time for that, largely because of the internet, which allows any piece of material to be plucked out, decontextualized, and then placed in front of thousands of people who might, in that decontextualized state, find it horrific. That doesn’t necessarily mean that when it was originally performed with an audience that was expecting more of that sort of thing, it wasn’t a perfectly OK thing to attempt to amuse with. Social media and the internet provide a whole new way for it to go wrong, but it is an old problem.”

“Peep Show” is considered a cult classic and has a dedicated fan base. What do you think it is about the show that resonated so well with viewers, and how has it impacted your career?

“It is a sitcom about two young men trying to figure out their lives, and a lot of people have had that experience. Even for people who haven’t, there are elements of it that reflect on the whole human condition – or at least the human condition in an affluent way. I speculate that’s why people liked it initially, and that’s what still draws people to it, particularly young people.

We knew we were shooting it in a slightly unusual way because that might get it a bit of attention, but we just wanted to make a series that people didn’t think was terrible. We were very pleased that people liked it, and it grew from there.

I was very lucky to stumble into a project like that so early on in my career. I am very, very proud of it. I am very happy to talk about it because it’s a difficult, insecure profession – show-business. To have anything that succeeds is unusual, so I think you have to cherish those things. Obviously, I want to do other and different things, but I am very happy that it is a part of my life. It’s the kind of show I wanted to make and has kind of been the only guiding principle of my career.”

Panel shows often require quick wit and improvisational skills. How do you prepare and what’s the secret to a successful panel show appearance?

“My feeling is that you can’t go in with a set of jokes you want to make because there are parts of my brain that remember things and parts that make things up, and they don’t work well together.

When I’m going into a situation where I might want to say something specific, I won’t listen to what other people are saying, and I’ll miss opportunities to say things that come out naturally in the live conversation. These off-the-cuff remarks often turn out better because they are of-the-moment. It’s the alchemy of the people involved and the conversational situation that they are put in that leads to comic invention different from what those people would have invented at home.

The best panel shows, in my opinion, come from individuals who show up in good spirits in front of an audience they are eager not to disappoint. They try to engage in funny banter within the structure provided by skilled programme makers. When it comes to the parts of the show that aren’t as good as the rest, you can always edit them out later.”

 “Unruly: The History of England’s Kings and Queens”. What inspired you to explore this topic, and what can readers expect from the book?

“I hope it’s a funny book, but it’s also a proper history of England’s monarchy from the Anglo-Saxons to 1603. There’s a lot to find absurd and funny about the past because, obviously, living in it (the Middle Ages) was dreadful, and most people lived in depths of misery that we can barely conceive of today.

So, looking at it with a lens of absurdity and humour, I think, without being offensive to the poor people who had to live through it, the comedy naturally arises from the truth of it. This approach is like my Observer column, where I attempt to find the funny, ridiculous, daft, and infuriating in the news and apply that to events from a long time ago.

All humans, in a way, want to see the world explained, and for me, that comes through history. During the lockdown, I was looking for some creativities to come from it and thinking about the Vikings and realized that their sudden coming and terrorizing of the English coastline was a bit like COVID – something that came out of the blue and ruined people’s lives. Viewing it that way was strangely comforting and quite funny. It reminded me that history isn’t just about great men and women or grand trends; sometimes, something random happens and screws things up for a lot of people, like rain at a garden party.

I enjoyed writing about it and had reached about 30,000 words on the Anglo-Saxons. I thought, “Well, maybe there’s a book in this.” I decided to focus on England’s monarchy, starting from the Dark Ages and medieval times, leading up to the merger with the Scottish monarchy in 1603.”

What advice do you have for young individuals aspiring to make a career in the entertainment industry, and how did you navigate the early stages of your career?

“Finding collaborators whom you like, admire, and are willing to commit to, and who are willing to commit to you, is a great way to enter into the world of comedy.

If you want to perform, also try to write if you can. Writing gives you significantly more leverage and control – you can always be writing, but you can’t always be performing. If you aren’t getting performance opportunities, writing can help you create them for yourself.

The Edinburgh Fringe was a huge thing for Rob and me. We went there every year, and it’s a place where many influential people in show-business attend. They often check out new talent. The key thing is to keep trying. Don’t give up unless, of course, you can give up, in which case, explore other options. But if you feel deeply that this is your calling in life, then go for it, keep trying. The more you roll the dice, the more likely you are to get a favourable outcome.

I recall someone from my university years who wrote to a very famous actress (I can’t remember who) seeking advice about becoming an actor and expressing concerns about the profession. The reply was quite brutal: “If you think of being an actor, don’t. If you have to be an actor, go for it, and I wish you luck.” There’s some truth in that. It’s an insecure profession, and if you must do it, then go all in. You need a bit of luck, and to have luck, you have to be there for a long time, waiting for your opportunity. The key thing is, if you know in your heart that you want to be in this profession and you’re willing to keep trying until you succeed, then go for it – try everything, and you’ll get there.”

David Mitchell will be interviewed by Jeremy Paxman live on stage at New Theatre Oxford on October 16th. Tickets (beginning £24) can be bought at the box office or at https://www.atgtickets.com/shows/unruly-in-conversation-with-david-mitchell–his-new-book/new-theatre-oxford/. Tickets include a copy of ‘UNRULY: A History of England’s Kings and Queens’.

Bottom of the pile: freedom of speech at Oxford

By
Jakub Trybull
-
Graphic of the Parthenon in Athens.

“Free speech is the lifeblood of a university.” So begins Oxford’s policy on freedom of speech. Followed by the tasteful poetry of triplets and metaphor, the policy explains how this fundamental right allows for the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and enables nuance and perspective to diversify debate in ways it otherwise might not have. 

This article won’t debate whether absolute freedom of speech is the pinnacle of individual and societal liberty. History reminds us what atrocities can emerge when this right is taken away whilst the modern day warns us of the tendency for hate speech to turn to violence. The answer, as always, probably lies somewhere in the middle. 

I was helping with a News article about Oxford falling to second place in The Times’ UK University ranking the other day. Thinking about how devastating this must be for the prideful Oxford student, I had a look at the results from the National Student Survey (NSS), an annual survey sent to half a million students by the Office for Students (OfS) with questions on seven topics: on-course teaching, learning opportunities, assessment and feedback, academic support, organisation and management, learning resources, and student voice.

Crucially, the survey this year included an unprecedented new question, Q27, which asked students:

“During your studies, how free did you feel to express your ideas, opinions, and beliefs?”

Its inclusion comes amid free speech rows on campuses in recent months and the passing of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act earlier this year. The Act intends to preserve and enshrine freedom of speech by imposing fines on higher education providers and student unions if there are any breaches. Sounds like a liberal dream to me. 

After some number crunching, I realised that, in response to Q27, Oxford ranked first amongst Russell Group universities* for freedom of expression whilst most others faltered on this level. 

For Q27, Oxford obtained a positivity measure of 90.8, followed closely by Imperial College London with 90.1. Essentially meaning that the vast majority (90.8%) of Oxford students felt positively about their freedom to share their views on campus. Whilst the lowest ranking Russell Group university was Manchester with just 82.5 – not so charming, man.

Although, five of the Group’s universities denied their right to express an opinion, with student unions at other campuses such as Cambridge holding boycotts against the NSS on “education marketisation” grounds which is interesting given the Higher Education Act’s ‘free speech tsar’ is coincidentally a Cambridge philosophy professor. The Oxford SU also took part in boycotts between 2017 and 2022 over concerns that the survey would be linked to the Teaching Excellence Framework and could result in higher fees for high-performing universities. Although the boycott’s historic effect is still present, it seems, in Oxford’s low response rate of 50.2%.

The survey also revealed that, of the Group members included (19 to be exact), 13 were below their individual benchmarks for free speech, with Manchester being the greatest outlier at -3.1 percentage points. Overall, the Group’s weighted average score was 85.2, just below its benchmark of 85.8, implying below satisfactory free speech protections.

Oxford’s NSS triumph may come as a shock. In a Cherwell poll (16th of September 2023), we asked our followers the same question (Q27). Of 168 respondents, 34 (20%) said that their free speech was mostly restricted while 3 (2%) said they were completely restricted. On the other hand, 81 (48%) said their free speech was mostly free and 50 (30%) were completely confident in that freedom. Using these results, the positivity score might be closer to 68.7, much lower than the NSS score.

Oxford’s role in the wider debate on free speech on campus has always been front and centre. Former Prime Minister and Oxford graduate, Boris Johnson’s 2019 manifesto included a pledge to “strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities.” 

Then in March 2020, UN Women Oxford UK’s de-platforming of former Home Secretary Amber Rudd resulted in vast criticism from JCR Presidents, de-registration as a student society, and ministers calling for strengthening the Office for Students’ powers to ensure free speech.

Later that year, the Student Union (SU) passed an ‘Academic Hate Speech’ motion condemning the “hateful material in mandatory teaching”, to which the University highlighted their free speech policy. This scuffle quite literally created laws, providing the backdrop for new regulation such as the Freedom of Speech (Higher Education) Act to be passed.

History repeats itself with Kathleen Stock’s talk at the Oxford Union (OU) last term having reignited the debate. Protests were staged against Stock, academics from both sides sent open letters, and the SU (unsuccessfully) attempted to ban the OU from the Freshers’ Fair. Like before, Oxford’s reaction to controversial speakers wasn’t contained to OX1. Instead, national papers joined the narrative prompting a country-wide conversation on free speech and even got a comment from the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak (yet another Oxford graduate…)

With all this considered it’s clear that free speech is no small nor easy topic, and its relationship with Oxford is ubiquitous. It is weaved into our tutorial system, into our societies, into our politics by our Oxford-educated prime ministers, and into our national media. Whether we think we have strong protections for free speech or that cancel culture is rife in our University, one thing is certain: we are talking about freedom of speech and we are loud.

–

*Russell Group members included Birmingham, Bristol, Durham, Exeter, Imperial College London, King’s College London, Leeds, Liverpool, London School of Economics and Political Sciences, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Queen Mary University of London, Sheffield, Southampton, University College London, Warwick, York.

EXCLUDING Cambridge, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Queen’s University Belfast.

Trump, the American left, and political ‘Voldemorts’

By
Jessica Tabraham
-

Trump burst onto the American and global political landscape eight years ago and it feels as though we have not stopped talking about him since. I understand the resultant reticence to discuss Trump, especially given the recent cultural discussion regarding platforming. However, I think the political left, both in the US and the UK are in danger of playing into the hands of Trump and others like him. A year out from the 2024 Presidential election, I think we need to change the way we talk about Trump and the populist right. 

Trump is on track to become the Republican nominee and a recent ABC poll not only projects a Trump victory in the Republican primary but a Trump victory against Biden by ten points, comfortably above the margin of error. This article is not intended as a hack piece of scaremongering, but, I do think we need to at least consider the worst outcome. We need to stop talking about how ludicrous the idea of Trump running is, and instead work out how to fight him if he does. 

In January 2021, during the aftermath of the Capitol insurrection, both Facebook and Twitter banned Trump from their platforms. At the time I welcomed this decision. I thought that both companies made the decision far too late and only made it when they realised Trump was no longer their moneymaker; but, I thought the most important thing was that the decision was made. The brief period of time where Trump was absent from our media discourse is also the time where the political left learnt an ostensibly valuable lesson: that talking about Trump only added to his power and creating endless discourse about him gifted him a status and political validity he did not deserve. At the time, I agreed with the collective lesson. I was bored with Trump. The media landscape was oversaturated with him. I just wanted him to go away. 

Now I’m not so sure this is the lesson we should have learned. The reticence to discuss Trump as a mainstream political figure has imbued him with an almost Voldemort-esque quality (not He Who Must Be Named but He Who Must Not Be Talked About). Before his Musk-sanctioned return to Twitter, Trump created his own platform Truth Social which appeared to be a failure. Trump did not have access to a mass audience; however, this does not necessarily constitute a failure and could in fact be an integral cog in his political strategy machine. Post-insurrection, Trump has aligned himself even further with the alt-right community which now includes alleged rapist Russell Brand, who has somehow managed to shapeshift from a Marxist to the ally of Tucker Carlson and Ron de Santis. Russell Brand’s YouTube channel ‘Stay Free’ operates with the same faux-martyred ethos as Trump’s ‘Truth Social’. For years, Brand has been cultivating a cult-like following whom he feeds with rants about the ‘mainstream media’ of which he is very much part. Brand was able to undergo such a transformation right under our noses because we do not take the alt-right community seriously enough. We need to interrogate it as we would any political discourse because nonchalantly dismissing it has not worked. 

Attacking Trump on the insurrection has not resulted in his political condemnation. In the first Republican primary debate seven out of eight candidates pledged to pardon Trump. When Trump left office, polling showed that 38% of Americans approved of his job performance. Now, that same poll has found that 48% of Americans approve of his job performance. I think it was important to impeach and indict Trump, placing our faith in the rule of law and democratic systems. However, we need to come to terms with the fact that the indictments may have helped Trump more than they have hindered him. Trump is using the insurrection and its subsequent indictments to recreate the way he entered the political landscape in 2016: as an outsider. It was ridiculous that in 2016 a wealthy businessman was able to label himself as an outsider; but, it is even more ridiculous now when that man has been the President of the United States. Trump built said rebel-outsider status by denouncing the Washington ‘blob’ and emphasising the history of the Clinton name in American politics. Now, his attack line is hauntingly similar with the weaponisation of Hunter Biden and the moniker of ‘the Biden Crime Family’. We did not take Trump seriously in 2016 and we suffered the consequences. The left were complacent in 2016 and we cannot enter the campaigning period with that same complacency. 

We are living in a political world that is rapidly being divided into ‘the establishment’ and ‘truthtellers’. In an attempt to find a chink in their armour, I decided to try and listen to what these ‘truthtellers’ had to say. Russell Brand’s channel boasts 6.5 million subscribers and one of the most viewed interviews is his hour long episode with disgraced Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Within the first five minutes Carlson, a man who has made his career in politics, states the following:

I’m not interested in politics. I’ve never been interested in politics. I’m interested in ideas and I’m interested in people. 

Flip this, and you have the solution to fighting him and all the tenants of the alt-right house. Trump will attempt to trick the electorate into thinking he is not a politician and it is from this engineered outsider status that he will aim his attacks. This man was President of the United States. Stop fighting Trump the person and start fighting Trump the politician. Trump is part of a growing right-wing movement which shuns mainstream media and the scrutiny that comes with it. Boris Johnson refused a long form interview with Andrew Marr in 2019 and Liz Truss refused any type of long form interview during her premiership. Increasingly, the political right are trying to evade the spotlight of the mainstream media because they are trying to hide the fact they are politicians. As politicians they owe the public the right to scrutiny. Trump, Johnson and Truss label themselves as ‘ideas people’: as radicals, rebels, martyrs and misunderstood geniuses. They are none of the above. They are politicians and it is time we started treating them as such.The success of alt-right media has been its relative insularity. Politicians of the left and centre do not touch it. The ‘truthtellers’ preach on their independent platforms to their cultivated choirs. The way to beat them is there- they just don’t think we’re listening. Naomi Klein’s new book Doppelganger details the existence of the alt-right ‘Mirror World’, which functions as a palimpsestic underbelly to mainstream political discourse. Instead of being scared of this world we need to interrogate it. Interrogating is not platforming, we are way past that point, alt-right rhetoric does not feel so alternative anymore. Instead, I suggest we take Klein’s metaphor and hold up a mirror to this world and its people. It is time that we held a mirror up to Trump so that the electorate can see him for the politician he really is.

Image credit: Gage Skidmore / CC BY-SA 2.0 deed via Wikimedia commons

£27,000 for a library card?

By
Kate Monaghan
-

I’m writing this over the summer vac in the library of my local university, which is considered to be in a league below Oxford. I’m sure this is true in some respects, but sitting here I can’t help but wonder what really makes Oxford better for my degree – history – than anywhere else.

I love Oxford, but I love it predominantly for reasons other than the education, which feels somewhat wrong. Anyone will attest this is a common Oxford theme: everyone loves to talk about how they wrote their last essay in five minutes. Literary Oxford is arguably more famous for hedonistic layabouts than devoted academics: Evelyn Waugh’s alcoholics and drop-outs (and Waugh himself, who despised Hertford and confessed ‘I do no work here and never go to Chapel’); Martin Amis characters who ‘read sex at Oxford’; the many now successful people who regarded their degree as more of a distracting hobby and graduated with flippant thirds.

While writing this I came across a Times article by Giles Coren that describes just what I’m talking about, reading in part: ‘One goes to Oxford precisely because the teaching is rubbish, nothing is compulsory, tutorials are optional after first week, and nobody ever, ever talks about careers. If you want to be taught and pass exams and become a lawyer, don’t you go to a red brick? Or Cambridge? Oxford is for drinking and playing tennis and nicking books out of the Bod under your cricket jumper and lobbing them at punting tourists from Magdalen Bridge.’ I won’t lie – my immediate reaction was: fantastic stuff, no notes. But then I thought about it more, and while this Brideshead Revisited sentiment is all very romantic, and a semi-reasonable thing to say back when university was free (or if you were somebody who didn’t have to worry about that anyway), it is really quite absurd to borrow or pay almost thirty thousand pounds to be told to read some books, and then choose not to read them.

When I think about this, I’m reminded of the scene in Good Will Hunting in which Will mocks Clark, a Harvard-educated bully, for having ‘dropped $150,000 on an education [Clark] coulda got for a dollar fifty in late fees at the public library.’ Clark retorts, ‘Yeah, but I’ll have a degree’, and Will, despite having just shown that he knows more than Clark, can’t argue with that. When the degree matters so much more than the knowledge acquired from the degree, the goal is not education or erudition, but the qualification itself, turning it into a brand or a product, something which can be purchased. It turns out not to be all that absurd that we don’t prioritise studying. The degree isn’t really about the books at all, and if you can get it without reading them properly, why bother?

People who talk about ‘paying thirty grand for a library card’ tend to be people who think the humanities are a self-indulgent waste of time: this isn’t what I’m saying. I don’t think the liberal arts are pointless; I think they deserve to be better. Oxford tells us to spend 40 hours per week on our degree, and for humanities students 90% of it is spent reading alone. This isn’t some random, exaggerated number: it actually is 90. Those of us doing history have three tutorials every two weeks, plus two or so lectures a week, and a class a week if we’re lucky – coming to a very optimistic eighteen contact hours out of 160 study hours a month, which is 11.25%. Of course, humanities degrees are by and large about reading, and spending many hours reading alone is unavoidable. But it shouldn’t feel like we’re just reading alone. It feels like a tragic missed opportunity to be taught by and among so many intelligent and knowledgeable people and only get to discuss the things we’ve all studied if somebody takes it upon themselves to start the conversation. It wasn’t until Hilary of second year that I had any classes at all, not until Trinity of the same year that I had classes with the other history students in my college – which I think is insane. Of course we discussed the things we studied together before this, but in our own time, and informally: why didn’t we have to do it for over a year?

The point of a liberal arts degree, the difference between it and simply going to the library, is supposed to be the opportunity for discussion with and instruction by some of the best minds. This is what the tutorial system intends to provide: the unique opportunity to have Socratic conversations with a leading expert in the field about a piece you’ve written, in which they treat you like an intellectual equal. I’m not sure if it succeeds. In practice, tutorials are more of a bizarre pretence that, after reading about something for a week and writing a few pages about it, we have nuanced enough opinions to have an equal conversation with someone who has devoted their whole life to it. Even after two years of this, in tutorials I still find it difficult to override the feeling that I should just let the expert talk – and I don’t think it’s always wrong to feel that way. When my tutorials are about topics on which I have genuine opinions, which they often are, I don’t have a problem defending my point of view. But when it’s something I don’t feel I know enough about, I don’t like having to pretend I know (as tutors will criticise you for not being opinionated enough). It seems remarkably unintellectual. It also seems like many problems, such as politicians artfully dodging questions, are reflected in, or in many cases actually nurtured by, the Oxford tutorial system.

Some have criticised tutorials, but while I think the concept is noble, things could be a lot better. The tutorial system still demands public-school arrogance, expecting students fresh from A-level to be confident enough to challenge tutors with decades of experience. Pre-existing barriers like this are difficult to break down but this doesn’t mean that we should ignore them. Wouldn’t it be beneficial to see our tutors more often, so that they become less of a scary, semi-anonymous figure associated predominantly with essay deadlines? And to have more classes and have them sooner, so that we aren’t always only talking to the expert? This isn’t a criticism of tutors themselves: I know many of them are more than willing to spend extra time with us if we ask for it, but real teaching should be a guarantee, not something that only happens when tutors overstretch themselves. Surely Oxford itself has the money and resources to give us more than a glorified library card and an hour a week.

Image credit:Diliff/ CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed via Wikimedia commons

Caretaker PM of Pakistan visits the Oxford Union

By
Cem Kozanoglu
-
Image credit: Sultan Khokhar

The Union welcomed Caretaker Prime Minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar on Tuesday for a Q&A. Held in a packed Gladstone room, Kakar was on the defensive, justifying his government’s efforts for free and fair elections, while rejecting that he is clamping down on press freedom and the right to assembly in the name of the military. 

Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar, a previously little-known senator with a background in geopolitics and close ties to the military, was appointed caretaker prime minister after parliament was dissolved in early August. Although the law requires an election to be held within 90 days, the latest census requires redrawing political boundaries, which will take some time. This means that Kakar’s mandate could be extended to 6 months, giving him an important role in the upcoming elections. 

The event was chaired by Union President Disha Hegde, who started by asking Kakar about the government’s plans for the upcoming elections in the country.

Kakar responded to concerns about the legality of election delays by referring to Article 254 of the constitution, which makes room for delays in governmental procedures. He followed up his technical response by underscoring that the franchise is universal and that the government is obligated to factor in the latest census.

When pushed by the President to give up a provisional date for the election, Kakar stated that such an act would be “unlawful”, as the Pakistani Electoral Commission is the body charged with organising the election, not the Caretaker PM. 

The government’s alleged repression of opponents, following the protests and riots against the military that broke out after ex-PM Khan’s first arrest on 9 May, was also addressed. Kakar called these allegations unfounded and replied that he was following the rule of law as a civil functionary by prosecuting those charged with “arson and vandalism”, regardless of their politics. 

He said that members of the PTI are free to organise and mobilise support, as long as they stay within legal boundaries. He unequivocally stated: “Are we going to stop [the PTI] from contesting the election: No. Are we going to bar Imran Khan from the elections: No.” 

Hegde then questioned the Caretaker PM’s neutrality, highlighting that his cabinet is made up of officials from one party. Kakar cited the PTI’s decision to resign from parliament in protest for the one-sidedness of his government, calling it a “faux pas” which had cost them the ability to have a say in his appointment. 

Pakistan’s slide on the press freedom index and the government’s responsibility to uphold press freedom was next on the agenda. The Caretaker PM pointed to the fact that South Asia in general scored badly in such indexes, stating that critical coverage of his government shows that the press is free. 

He responded to claims that journalists were “frightened into silence” by adding that without “substantive evidence” of intimidation, these were “imaginative fears”. 

The discussion continued onto the overbearing role of the military in Pakistan. While the Caretaker PM accepted that “[n]obody can deny there is a civil-military imbalance in the country”, he argued that this imbalance was fuelled by “civil incompetence” compared to the “increased capability of the military.”

He said further that the military is discriminated against and that Western media too often “accepts as fact” criticisms of the military based on “hearsay.” He projected Pakistan’s future along one of two paths: An anti-military uprising akin to the “French revolution with its guillotines unleashed”, or a peaceful transition to civil power achieved through collaboration with the military. He added his personal preference for the latter option.

Hegde’s final question concerned the latest IMF bailout, and the allegations that it was brokered by the US in exchange for an arms deal with Ukraine and accepted to keep the government afloat while it repressed its opponents.

The Caretaker PM called these allegations “speculations” and portrayed himself as a defender of the liberal democratic order, comparing his crackdown on rioters to the FBI’s crackdown following the January 6 Capitol attacks. 

Questions were opened up for Union members 40 minutes into the event, starting with one about raids into Pakistan across the Afghan border. The Caretaker PM became noticeably more energetic and animated compared to the preceding confrontational questions, as he emphasised the importance of collaboration with the Afghan government to curb terror.

The second question was the most confrontational of the event, with the member saying that “according to the Pakistani mainstream press, the only problem with the country is Khan and the PTI”, quoting a speech by the Caretaker PM where he had allegedly said “free and transparent elections could be held without Imran Khan.”

The Caretaker PM started his response by asking if he could refer to the member as “my dear sister”, and asking if his “dear sister” had watched “the full interview from the source”. When the member’s response was negative, he stated that she had been misinformed and told her that all citizens had a “moral responsibility” to verify their information sources. 

The remaining two questions addressed the government’s efforts to keep Pakistanis from emigrating and the protection of religious minorities. For the first question Kakar said he preferred to see brain drain as “brain assets”. As for religious minorities, he insisted that Pakistan should be defined by its good intentions to protect freedom of religion, not by its few shortcomings to do so.

Oxford tops worldwide university rankings

By
Oliver Adelson
-
Image Credit: Raygar He via Unsplash

The University of Oxford has placed first in the 2024 Times Higher Education (THE) University Rankings. This is the eighth consecutive year THE has named Oxford the best university in the world – the last university besides Oxford to top the charts was the California Institute of Technology in 2016.

In second and third place this year were Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The next UK universities on the list were the University of Cambridge, which placed fifth, and Imperial College London, which placed eighth. Apart from these three British universities, the top ten positions were exclusively occupied by American institutions. 

The Times Higher Education rankings come just weeks after The Sunday Times and The Times “Good University Rankings” (UK only), in which Oxford placed second behind St Andrew’s. 

The Vice-Chancellor of Oxford welcomed the release of THE’s rankings, writing: “I am absolutely thrilled Oxford has been once again named the top university in the world. Eight years of leading the Times Higher Education world rankings is a testament to the impactful research we conduct that tackles some of the grand challenges facing people and the planet as well as the exceptional standards of teaching we deliver that will continue to inspire generations to come. 

“I am filled with admiration for my colleagues and gratitude for all their efforts that propel this unique institution forwards.”

In response to the rankings, one third-year undergraduate student at St. Hugh’s indicated that he had expected Oxford to place first. He told Cherwell, “It’s nice to know that we’re still the best, though hardly surprising given that we’ve held that position for the last seven years.”

1...808182...2,439Page 81 of 2,439

Explore

Follow us

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy