Saturday 19th July 2025
Blog Page 85

Tories trounced, but are young people really represented?

Adam Saxon
-
0
Tories trounced, but are young people really represented?

I was lucky enough to spend the night of the 4th of July in a bustling sports hall in Abingdon, working as a stringer for ITV for this year’s general election. For me – and for most current university students – this election was our first opportunity to vote. It also happened to be a historic election, with the Conservative vote collapsing, dropping to their lowest number of seats since their formation in 1834. Despite this, there are questions around how representative the new government is, for young people as well as the population as a whole. 

Make no mistake. The general election’s results, despite the headline figure of seats, were not (largely) a ringing endorsement of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour party. His vote share is up just 1.6% on 2019, when Labour experienced their worst result in seats since 1935. Apart from in Scotland, where a languid SNP’s vote also collapsed, the increase in Labour’s vote share is largely insignificant. Starmer has won a smaller proportion of the popular vote than Jeremy Corbyn did in 2017. 

More concerningly, turnout looks to be down to record low levels. In 2019, turnout was 67.3%. This time around, turnout was around 60%, at its second lowest level since 1885. Such a collapse in tangible engagement with politics is dangerous for democracy and an alarm bell signifying widespread disillusionment, especially around Labour and the Conservatives, whose joint vote share is its lowest since 1923. 

Apathy is particularly high among young people, 44% of whom were not expected to vote in this year’s election. The youth turnout is invariably lower than that of older cohorts, but this time around a lack of inspiring policy from mainstream parties as a result of tight economic constraints is likely to have contributed to young people staying at home. One of the new Labour government’s biggest challenges will be following through with Keir Starmer’s promise to return politics to the ‘service of the people’ given that more people than ever are represented by MPs they did not vote for. 

Despite all this, it is difficult to not credit Starmer with what is an incredible achievement. He will have the fourth largest majority in parliament ever, in the first election since Labour’s disastrous performance in 2019.  He becomes just the fourth Labour leader to guide the party to a majority from opposition. As Starmer says, he has turned around the fortunes of his party, and in doing so has won them an election for the first time in 19 years. 

Starmer’s policies, though, are likely to be responsible but unpopular. Strategies like the gamble on growth will take years to see rewards (if they do at all), and there is already talk of Starmer needing at least two terms to deliver on his goals. The goal of building 1.5 million new houses, for example, will take time given it will first require the shredding of existing planning laws and extensive consultations about where ‘new towns’ will be built. If Labour fails to make significant progress over the next five years, they will be forced to accept advances by Reform UK, whose populist rhetoric thrives under widening inequality and worsening standards of living, and a Conservative Party likely to drive itself further into the extremes while in opposition. 

In Abingdon, while trying to elicit hints about who might win the constituency I had been assigned to, I got talking to some of the Green Party volunteers. They were incredibly concerned about the mounting stacks of ballot papers being placed into the baskets for the Reform candidate. Indeed, the rise of Reform when compared with that of the Greens is particularly telling. It has taken the Green Party, in its various forms, around fifty years to win four seats, considered an achievement for them this time around. It has taken Reform in its current form one election to gain over double the vote share that the Greens managed. 

This says something about the general shift of politics in the country. While the mainstream right in the Conservatives has struggled, the Labour Party has shifted to the centre, Reform has risen, and, some argue, the largest truly ‘left-wing’ party now seems to be the Liberal Democrats. There is much to be concerned about for those who see themselves as progressives.The Greens will want to build on their results, having come second in 39 seats, but as of now seem consigned to the fringes of parliament.

More important for many of us, though, is the concern of how heard young people will feel in the years to come. With more young people than ever switching to the Green Party, showing signs that they don’t feel represented by Labour, it will be important for the incoming government to show that they do take priorities like housing and the environment seriously if they wish to win them back. It is also vital that our politicians tackle the brutal apathy of many young people towards politics generally, and reverse decades of declining voter turnout at source. Such a reversal can only happen through taking the priorities of young voters seriously, and showing them that politics can make a positive difference.

OA4P encampment at Radcliffe Camera ‘disbands’

Cherwell News
-
0
OA4P encampment at Radcliffe Camera ‘disbands’

Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P)’s encampment in front of Radcliffe Camera disbanded in the early hours of 8th July, hours after the deadline given by Oxford University. Contractors began clearing the Rad Cam lawn shortly after.

This follows 64 days of protests since OA4P first established an encampment in front of the Pitt Rivers Museum. Two weeks later, the encampment expanded to the Rad Cam lawn. After the end of term, the University began clearing the Pitt Rivers Museum site and sent out a notice that if the Rad Cam encampment did not leave by 7th July, the administration would apply to court for a possession order.

A statement from OA4P said: “In the interest of our members and of the movement for Palestine, we have decided to redirect our momentum towards other forms of action: organising, political education, and the continued growth of our coalition.

“The negotiations team for OA4P has stated a continued intention to dialogue with the University for as long as the University indicates progress on the coalition’s demands.”

Following the vacation, two dozen protesters also “picketed” at the administration offices in Wellington Square to “disrupt entry”, according to the statement.

Since the end of term, numbers at the encampment had dropped as most students returned home, with mostly graduates and postgraduates remaining.

OA4P originally listed seven demands, primarily targeting the University’s finances. The University has announced an “accelerated review” of its investment policy as well as scholarships and fellowships for Palestinians. The other demands, including divesting from arms companies and Barclays Bank, remained unmet.

In response, the University commented that: “The University welcomes the disbanding of the camp outside the Radcliffe Camera. We are now assessing the state of the lawn and what further action is required to clear and restore the site.

“The University has consistently expressed grave concern about the horrific events unfolding in Gaza. As a community, we hope for a peaceful end to the conflict, a permanent ceasefire, the urgent delivery of vital medical aid and food, and the safe return of all hostages. 

“Senior leaders of the University have been meeting regularly with a range of student and staff groups. We are committed to meeting with members of our community to understand and respond to their concerns, and consider how we can best contribute to rebuilding higher education in Gaza.”

Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy reinstated as Union President

Cherwell News
-
0
Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy reinstated as Union President

Following an Appellate Board decision, Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy has been reinstated as Oxford Union President. This follows his election victory, disqualification by Tribunal, allegations of “institutional racism”, and a walk-out in his support.

Osman-Mowafy told Cherwell that the decision of the Tribunal that disqualified him was “quashed”.

The full Appellate Board report has not yet been published.

At the end of last term, 17 Union committee members delivered a list of demands, including the reinstatement of Osman-Mowafy, and threatened to resign. Dozens then walked out of the Union debate.

Earlier that week, the Union’s three governing bodies – Consultative Committee, Standing Committee, and Secretary’s Committee – each passed motions declaring the Union “institutionally racist”.

Osman-Mowafy alleged that a Clerk made Islamophobic comments regarding hijabi women. Several ex-Presidents of colour and top officers signed letters stating that the Union has been overly litigious and those proceedings have been “disproportionately targeting individuals from non-traditional backgrounds.”

A ‘golden age’ for Oxford: In conversation with Chancellor Patten

Julia Amann
-
0
A ‘golden age’ for Oxford: In conversation with Chancellor Patten

Lord Christopher Patten has been the Chancellor of Oxford University since 2003. Before that, he acted as the last Governor of Hong Kong and as Chairman of the Conservative Party. 

In February 2024, Lord Patten announced his retirement from the Chancellorship;  intense media speculation about which British public figure might take over his role ensued.

Cherwell sat down with Lord Patten to go over his time as Chancellor, how the University has changed over the last two decades, and what it represents now. 

The Chancellor discussed his concerns with the future of higher education funding; the power of donations; western universities’ relationship with China; and the changing demographics of Oxford students.

Oxford students hear a lot from the Vice-Chancellor, but don’t get to interact as much with you. What is your role? What does your day look like? 

I do all the ceremonial stuff but I suppose I’m here, twice a week, sometimes more doing things at colleges. Sometimes fundraising, sometimes anniversaries. I do quite a lot of fundraising. Harold Macmillan, who was Chancellor when I was undergraduate, told me it’s the Vice-Chancellor who actually runs the university – but if you didn’t have a Chancellor, you could never be a Vice-Chancellor. I suppose the most important executive thing I do from time-to-time is chair the committee that chooses the Vice-Chancellor. 

What are some notable moments from your tenure?

It’s been really lucky that I’ve been Chancellor during a golden age for the University. You think about the scholarships, [and] everything from vaccines to huge numbers of academic and research successes. While I’ve been Chancellor, we’ve raised, I think, about five billion in private philanthropy. We’ve got some wonderful scholarships, you know, which helped to open up [Oxford] a bit for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds or disadvantaged schools. At the same time, it hasn’t distracted from the fact that its most important role is teaching its students. So I’ve been really lucky. 

On that note, Oxford has been the subject of some criticism that the donations they take don’t always align with the University’s values. 

There’s an academic committee, which decides what sort of collaborations we should have. Four or five years ago … we turned down a huge research collaboration with Huawei, for example. If you’ve got some rogue, who’s made a lot of money out of something dubious, we normally wouldn’t take the money. It’s happened once or twice … I think we are pretty careful.

Unlike America, you don’t have legacy preference [in the UK]. Legacy preference would make it very difficult for us to avoid being pushed around by the government about admissions.

You have been pretty vocal about being wary of the CCP and Chinese influence in western academic institutions.

There is a China problem. But that’s true of all universities. There are two aspects to it, one of which I think is very manageable, the other is which is more difficult. I think it’s pretty manageable to avoid taking money from dodgy Chinese interests, either universities or industry. You wouldn’t want to stop all research collaboration with Chinese universities. You wouldn’t want to stop collaboration on environmental issues, for example.

But to be doing research or receiving money from a Chinese company which is deep into surveillance technology, or is very suspect … But [that’s] more manageable than the question of ensuring that Chinese students who are here get the same liberal education as everybody else …  so we have to keep an eye on that. But I’m happy that there are so many Chinese students here. I don’t want to stop Chinese students from coming.

There has been some criticism about British universities’ dependence on international students for funding. 

I’ll tell you what makes me quite cross. Higher education is facing a real crisis in funding.

Above all, because the government doesn’t give us as much money as they should. Universities, not just this one, subsidise teaching prices. 

Look at how much [universities] get from foreign students who pay higher fees. They think it’s therefore sensible to try to attract more foreign students. And sometimes they do that by providing what administrators call Mickey Mouse degrees. If there are Mickey Mouse degrees, it’s because of Donald Duck politicians asking universities to do things which are contradictory to what they’re actually prepared to support. 

We’re lucky because we have endowments to escape that. But there are some universities which will go bust unless they’re helped by the government in substantial ways. And it’s obviously crazy if some universities have to fund research based on the income they get from well-off middle-class families in Nigeria or China or India. So I think there are really serious issues in the funding and organisation of higher education. And because we’re so much better placed than anybody else, except probably Cambridge and Imperial, to deal with them, I think we’ll have to take a leadership role [in the next few years] in arguing the case for better funding of higher education.

It seems clear that in a few weeks we might be faced with a new government. How does that play into funding issues?

I think there’s a threat to democracy if you don’t tell people they’re going to have to make future sacrifices. If you tell people it’s going to be all fine if you vote for them, and then after you vote for them they have to cut spending and increase taxes, that really undermines democracy.

I assume there’s going to be a Labour government and I hope that the next Chancellor will be able to convince them that higher education needs a greater priority.

In your 20 years, state school admissions have increased from about 52% to about 68%. Some have labelled it a British version of America’s affirmative action. To what extent should that trend continue?

I don’t think it’s that at all. I just think it’s a more intelligent approach to admissions policy, which some independent schools don’t like. If you’ve got two applicants, one of them went to a smart independent school and the other went to a comprehensive in Hackney or Sunderland, and they both have three stars, which one are you likely to give the place to? The one who’s managed to do very well despite the fact they’ve had a lousy education or education without much in the way of resources. To do that you have to be very careful. One, that you don’t assume that there is a direct correlation between independent education and the lack of social mobility. And two, you have to recognise that some kids go to independent schools because their parents make huge sacrifices.

I think you have to be quite careful that admissions policy, which isn’t a science, does take some account of the resources which those who want to be admitted here have been able to tap into.

We’ve done quite well, in opening up admissions and being more open about the proportion of BAME students and the proportion of students from socially disadvantaged areas.

The Prime Minister was talking, quite properly, about how important it was to have more maths teachers. I thought to myself, if I was debating with him, I would say that there’s no shortage of maths teachers at Winchester [College]. But I bet if you google comprehensives in the area, you’d find that there was a shortage of maths teachers, which is an argument for spending more on teaching and spending more on schools.

But then I’ve just been saying we need to spend more on higher education as well. It’s very difficult in a country … which has been rather badly governed for quite a long time. I don’t want to sound depressing, but I think we’re in a really difficult point [in time] in talking about resource issues.

There’s been controversy surrounding how democratic the elections for the next Chancellor will be, which will be held online for the first time this year. Should the process be democratic? Do you care? 

There was a certain old-fashioned charm [to the previous method]: you’d have students stand outside of the Divinity School, you’d see this queue of people waiting to vote. [At my election] I’d see my whole life in front of me. Permanent secretaries of departments, ambassadors who I had stayed around the world with, journalists whom I knew, businessmen whom I was aware of, and so on and so on. At the time, there was a lot of criticism because it was thought we weren’t keeping up with technology. And it would have been impossible to continue to argue for that today, when you can organise virtual voting with tech.

You have to have some sensible parameters. I don’t think it would make sense for us to have past MPs [as Chancellor]. I think all [the University] are trying to do now is to ensure that the people who are put forward meet certain, very general, reasonable specifics: that they represent what’s established in the law about equality and so on, that they’re respectable, that they’re serious. We were getting bloody lectures from Conservative MPs about [screening nominees to the Chancellorship]. But I’m going to have nothing to do except to say that whoever wins I’ll support. 

What advice would you give to the next Chancellor?

Enjoy it. And always try to publicly support the Vice-Chancellor. You need to support the sort of initiatives which the Chancellor and the administration want to take.

You have to get around the colleges as much as possible. You have to make a public case not just for universities as a whole, but for this one. This is one of the greatest universities in the world. You can’t look at many things in this country and say: ‘That’s the greatest in the world.’ [In Britain, we] don’t have as many of those things as we used to. Our higher education is regarded as enthusiastically or more enthusiastically in public as almost anything except the royal family, the NHS, and the armed forces.

So, I think a Chancellor has to enjoy it. Has to support the administration. Has to deal with government and external forces. And has to continually put forward the moral case for who we are.

In conversation with Moe Sbihi, the British rower ‘Stockholm Syndrome-d’ into Olympic gold 

Olivia Polito Pons
-
0
In conversation with Moe Sbihi, the British rower ‘Stockholm Syndrome-d’ into Olympic gold 

Three-time Olympic medallist, World Champion rower, MBE, the first British Muslim Olympic flag bearer: the highly decorated Moe Sbihi seems to have done it all when it comes to having a successful rowing career. I spoke to him to find out more about where it all started, and how this astounding success has affected not just his athletic career, but his personal life too. 

Moe Sbihi nonchalantly introduces himself as a “three-time Olympic medallist with one gold and two bronzes, and a multi-time World Champion in rowing”. We start at the beginning. Sbihi grew up in the rowing-crazed Kingston-Upon-Thames, with his British mother and Moroccan father, coming across the sport “by a slightly unconventional route”, spotted by Talent ID as part of their 2003 World Class Start programme, which visited schools in search of potential sporting stars. “There was a massive drive ahead of the 2012 [Olympic] Games. I just happened to be tested in the right place, at the right time,” he muses. 

As a teenager, Sbihi admits that he was “a bit of a dickhead”. On the day of testing at his “normal comprehensive state school”, all the tall kids had been warned that they had to bring their kit and take part. Sbihi explains how it so nearly could have all gone wrong: “I wanted to go and play football with my friends, so I got on the bus to the playing fields.” A twist of fate meant his PE teacher pulled back the reluctant 15-year-old and sent him off to the rowing test. “A couple of months later, they said, ‘you have all the raw parameters to be an Olympic medallist in 2012. Do you want to start rowing?’”  

I ask him about the process of becoming an Olympian. “I started rowing with the sole aim of winning the Olympic medal, and that sounds silly when I look back”, he says. “20 years ago, when I started, I was useless – I had no idea what to do.” Initially, he felt that he was going into an elitist environment – but the first few months at his rowing club started to strip back these “preconceived misconceptions”. He was also not that good. “I really struggled at the beginning – they said I had all this raw potential, and it’s great to have all the numbers on a spreadsheet, but I kept falling into the water.” 

Sbihi was warned about the difficulties that lay ahead by his coaches, who let him know “it takes a lot of hard work, dedication and motivation – and even after all of that, it might not happen. The data could be wrong, you might get ill or injured at any point in your career – not everyone is going to be a successful athlete.” 

The struggle for a seat on the boat is a tough one, “Rowing is often epitomised as the team sport, but there are 30 men and 30 women who turn up at the start of each year for 21 seats.” Nine people are guaranteed to miss out on their dream. “Between the months of October and April, you are pitted against each other – you could be taken out of the boat at any point. And then almost overnight, you’re selected into boats. You and I could have been the fiercest of rivals, but the very next day, we’re expected to be teammates in a boat, and go and beat the rest of the world.” 

Despite this, Sbihi still believes rowing is the ultimate team sport, wherein “you could have an amazing race and think you’ve just rowed the best you ever have, and still be last.” Never more appropriately has it been said that the whole is far greater than the sum of the individuals.

The rower gained media attention in the lead-up to the 2012 Games, particularly as the timing of Ramadan, a holy month in Islam, overlapped with the Olympics. “I’d never been to the Olympics, and I got more attention than any gold medallist in the rowing world”. The media became obsessed by how he and other Muslim athletes would accommodate for what he describes as a  “clash of cultures”. “Fasting is one of the fundamental pillars in the Islamic faith, and if you decide not to fast, there are consequences – for every day you intentionally don’t fast, you have to fast an additional 30 days, or you need to feed 60 needy people. It worked out to nearly five years of fasting – it was impossible.” Coming out from 2012 slightly disillusioned with a bronze medal, he decided to maintain a media blackout in 2013 to focus on his athletic performance and avoid media controversies surrounding his faith. That winter, something changed. “I was being foolish – I was one of the first practising Muslims within Team GB Rowing, and I had this platform that young Muslim kids could look up to.” 

I ask more about the sportsman’s identity, and he explains the close links he feels to two countries – Britain and Morocco. Having spent all his summers with his family there, he feels , “very, very close to the country of Morocco”. He describes the emotions tied to representing Team GB whilst having strong ties to another country. “At the start line representing Team GB with the flag on your chest, you can’t help but feel proud to be sitting in a boat of one of the leading nations in sport.” He believes some level of patriotism is necessary to be an Olympian, but the sense of team spirit is ultimately the most important aspect – “the feeling is unrivalled”. 

Sbihi has been widely recognised for his efforts and achievements, and was made an MBE in 2017 for services to rowing after winning gold at the 2016 Rio Olympics. At the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, he became the first Muslim flag bearer for Team GB. “I often talk about my journey being a fairytale from day one”, he says. 

I asked Sbihi to pinpoint the most pivotal moments of his journey, to gauge how he perceives his career and personal life. He identifies his parents’ encouragement to “see the journey through” when he was young as fundamental to his later success, despite the fact that he “hated rowing” when he first started. His mental shift by the end of 2013 was formative to his later success, during the period of his media blackout, which he candidly describes as “one of the most difficult years in terms of mental fortitude”. He reveals the reality that “I became World Champion in 2013. But I didn’t speak to my teammates for weeks and weeks. I felt like I was going off the rails and trying to rebel against all kinds of institutions.” But he was stuck, “I was expected to be the best, and so I had to change my mindset.” His personal development did not stop here – as the rower continued to succeed, he describes how his father’s illness in the run-up to Rio, and the birth of his child, made him realise “you’re not rowing just for yourself, but you’re rowing for others”.

Progress is not linear, Sbihi points out. “Getting the gold medal is probably one of the biggest hand brakes you can ever get as an athlete,” he admits. By 2016, he was the person to beat, without knowing if he could live up to his prior success. He points out that he feels lucky to have won multiple medals, but that the hunger for success has never quite been suppressed. “I still don’t feel completely happy after the career I’ve had. You can always look back and think that something could have gone better. I applaud the athletes that are able to get one gold medal and then just leave the sport, because the ‘what ifs?’ are still running through my head now.” 

He leaves me with this final reflection: “I didn’t like the sport, but I fell in love with the sport. It wasn’t, you know, love at first sight – Stockholm Syndrome is probably the best way to describe it”, he jokingly concludes. The sporting star has indeed achieved his position via rather unconventional means, coming across his talent unwittingly as a teenager, and dealing with questions of fame, faith and patriotism since. He has challenged what it means to be a British Olympic rower, upholding his complex identity and becoming a role model for many, through his impressive integrity and hard work. 

University to pursue court order if Radcliffe Camera encampment does not leave

Cherwell News
-
0
University to pursue court order if Radcliffe Camera encampment does not leave

University to pursue court order if Radcliffe Camera encampment does not leave

In an open letter published today, Oxford University asked the Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P) encampment in Radcliffe Square to leave by 7th July or the University will “apply to the court for a possession order”.

The letter states that one of the University’s concerns is that the camps are “being used as a base for unlawful activity such as the incursion into the Wellington Square offices and the occupation of the Examination Schools.”

Other concerns include interference with academic activity such as graduation and exams, impact on Radcliffe Camera library users especially disabled users, and damages to the lawns as a result of tree-planting.

In a physical notice posted from the University administration to “persons unknown”, the University stated: “Your current use and occupation of [Radcliffe Square] is not lawful and amounts to an act of trespass.”

The University withdraws any “express or implied permission” for the students to be there for the purpose of an encampment. This follows the University’s removal of OA4P’s first encampment site at Pitt Rivers Museum.

In their letter, the University noted that they have engaged with students and staff at meetings, including members of the encampment; committed to review their investment policies; and committed to expanding scholarships and fellowships for Palestinians.  

If the protesters do not “disband” by the 7th July deadline, the University “intends to bring court proceedings against [the encampment] in which the University will seek the grant of a possession order,” according to the notice.

Previously, London School of Economics evicted its encampment from a building after obtaining a court order.

Cherwell has contacted OA4P for comment.

In conversation with Oli Dugmore, the mind behind PoliticsJOE

Adam Saxon and Oliver Sandall
-
0
In conversation with Oli Dugmore, the mind behind PoliticsJOE

Oli Dugmore, known best as the mind behind PoliticsJOE, echoes many of the views young, disillusioned voters hold. He mostly spends his time podcasting, editing, and sourcing the perfect viral clip. Dugmore also found time in his busy schedule to speak in this term’s Oxford Union debate on populism. But before he could step foot in the hallowed chamber, we sat down with him to discuss all things politics … and PoliticsJOE. 

Dugmore, suited up in preparation for his showdown alongside Nancy Pelosi, greeted us in the same lighthearted and nonchalant way he does his ever-growing PoliticsJOE fanbase. A firm handshake and glass of Union red wine later, we got started with our questions.

Adam: PoliticsJOE has mastered the art of the ‘viral clip’, often taking the internet by storm with edits of politicians or street interviews. Does there have to be some balance between virality and high journalistic standards?

Dugmore: Given PoliticsJOE is a startup and a challenger brand, in its infancy it was, of course, very much about virality. The way to get people to find out about your publication and engage with the content is by trying to attract a broad audience and being like “we are here, take a look at us”. Take, for example, our mashup songs where we chop up bits of speeches and stick them together. They’re great. They travel super far […] but the people who see them don’t actually make much of a connection with the brand – so they’re a shallow [yet wide] audience. 

Longer term – to build a sustainable brand – you need people to care, who want to watch everything you make because they like what you do. This is about building a narrower, deeper audience – through running events, asking people to subscribe or support you financially by selling merch, for example. 

The ideal for PoliticsJOE would be for lots of people to see the content – and for it to make a difference. This means telling a story that changes someone’s life, brings about a change in government policy, or convinces people to see an issue in a different way. The ‘Goldilocks zone’ would be hitting all of these goals. Interestingly, though, we’re seeing an increasing trend of TV stations that nobody watches, but the Prime Minister will go on and be interviewed, […] yet won’t respond to us despite our mass market audience.

Oli: As someone who has seen PoliticsJOE’s clips online, but not seen you in them so much – where do you see yourself in JOE Media and how do you see it evolving? 

Dugmore: So, as the Editor, while I do things like interview philosophers and politicians, and appear in the podcast, most of my day to day is background. It’s editing. I commission pieces, provide feedback, and decide strategy.

An old boss of mine once told me that you can either be in the field doing journalism, or you can be at the desk editing; you can’t do both. I’ve always sought to prove him wrong. I haven’t really figured it out yet, but what makes me happiest is being out there, doing the journalism, which is what I was doing when I was the only member of staff for the PoliticsJOE wing of JOE Media. 

That entailed a lot of being out on the street all the time, ‘Vox pop’-ing, and going and doing reporter features. Unfortunately, there’s less and less time for me to do that now. It is, however, the virtue of it: I’ve been doing this for six years, I’m the last man standing in a way, and to a certain extent you ascend the ranks within a company, inevitably, because you’ve been there for so long. I’d be interested to know what you guys think, whether you get more satisfaction from editing compared with writing?

Oli: Well, we spent 16 hours yesterday staring at screens laying in for our print edition which comes out every two weeks. 

Adam: We didn’t finish until midnight, basically. But that’s what we do, as Editors-in-Chief.

Dugmore: Exactly. Quite often, too, your journalists’ pieces are really successful, and they’re the ones who rightly get the plaudits for it. So it can feel like a thankless task, but there’s lots of invisible labour which is really important. 

This is probably a slightly broader comment on society too. In our modern age, there’s a trend towards yearning for the adoration of strangers, especially on social media, but I think why the fuck do I care what ‘Jim in Preston’ thinks?

I don’t respect Jim. Jim doesn’t respect me. 

I care about the opinions of people I respect, about the opinions of my colleagues, about the opinions of my family. I care about the opinions of my close friends.

Oli: Is that why you think JOE Media is different from other media? It’s provocative, and does that play on the feelings of those you’re interviewing and of your readership?

Dugmore: I don’t think it has anything to do with ‘provoking’ people. When you look at funny, provocative sells on twitter, or at a finely balanced headline on YouTube, some might call it clickbait, but I would say it balances clarity and curiosity perfectly.

Take, for example, the sinking of the Belgrano. Many see it as a war crime. Writing “Gotcha” on your front page [as The Sun did in 1982] is certainly a provocative way of getting people to buy the paper and engage with the story.

So, rather than just rejecting your point, and engaging with the substance, if you look at a pre-Politics JOE world and ask how much of the traditional legacy media is actually catering to younger audiences, it pales in comparison with that which exists for older voters, homeowners, and those who actually buy newspapers.

So, maybe I am prepared to have a slightly more guerilla, by any means necessary, approach, in an attempt to get young people to engage with politics, and actually for them to say maybe there’s a connection between me being apathetic and my generation constantly getting a kicking from the political class. And if I have to publish some provocative ‘Vox pops’ to do that, then yeah I’m going to.

Adam: How do you see PoliticsJOE’s role in shaping the mobilisation of young people this year with the general election, specifically in making sure young people do care about politics?

Dugmore: That connects to the previous point. So, take the issue of housing, for example. If I can get national politicians to actually take housing seriously, and not just have an incoming Labour government say that they’ll do 10–20% better than the current Conservative government in terms of house building, which doesn’t address the scale of the problem, then I’ll do so.

If we can impose enough political consciousness, public pressure, or media pressure for them to take the issue seriously, then that would be a success. Such a challenge could also be applied to the environment, arts and culture, nightlife, and mental health provision, to name but a few issues. 

My job is to inform my audience and get them to care, not to get Starmer or the Labour Party elected. But I don’t think we necessarily need PoliticsJOE to make young people care, given the debacle of GCSE results, the debacle of A-Level results, the insecure job market, the insecure housing market, again to name but a few issues. Young people want to give the government a kicking. 

The only thing I can’t abide is apathy. If you say “I don’t care, it doesn’t make a difference, I’m not into it”, that’s unacceptable. That, though, is a very different position to saying that you opposed on a political level to the system of government in this country and that voting would be tacitly consenting to such a form of government. 

Adam: On a different note, AI is obviously going to be big going into the election too. What are we going to do in terms of making sure we can trust the media?

Dugmore: Do you trust me?

Adam: I don’t know.

Dugmore: I’ll tell you a story. There’s a guy called Swede Mason (aka Swedemason), who makes most of our truly viral content, like the mashup speeches, the songs, the AI. The AI is the crucial one. We started a podcast last year, and I told Swede I wanted him to use AI to train the voice of Jacob Rees Mogg to say “after Nanny puts Sextus to bed, there’s nothing I like more than to sit and listen to the PoliticsJOE podcast.”

Swede said to me he didn’t think we could do that one, because how would anyone know that this is AI and not something we’ve just created? Rees Mogg probably wouldn’t like the podcast, probably doesn’t like PoliticsJOE, and it would be unethical for us to do this.

To which I said: Swede. If you were ill or on holiday, is there anything to stop me from publishing this? No. Mentally I’m still a teenager in my bedroom. At the moment, though, we’re settling for just using his voice in Goodfellas intros to make jokes about Johnson and things like that. 

Adam: How do you deal with legal issues around that too then? Especially considering defamation, for example?

Dugmore: Of course, standard rules still apply, and we have to be careful and not sink the publication in terms of legal costs. 

AI is already being used in newsrooms, though, in a much less sexy way – it’s being used in things like transcription services [gesturing at the transcriber]. Sean, my esteemed colleague, often uses Adobe’s AI feature to create thumbnails for our YouTube. People often think about the apocalyptic, and fail to think about the ways it’s already being used in the workplace. 

We also can’t absolve the electorate of responsibility. If, for example, you see someone with six fingers telling you to invade Iran, that’s kind of on you – you should be paying attention. But AI can also be used for good. For example, it can be used to verify war footage circulating on social media through geolocation by using open source information. So there’s a world in which AI can assist journalists to do their job better. 

Oli: Last thing. We’ve got some quick fire questions for you. First off – how would you describe JOE Media in just a couple of words?

Dugmore: Social media publisher for a modern, young British person. 

Oli: Advice to first time voters?

Dugmore: Vote.

Oli: Advice to young Journalists?

Dugmore: Get as many bylines as possible. Ideally, don’t study journalism – study something you’re interested in, and become an expert in it.

Oli: Most importantly, what do you think of our new social media redesign?

Dugmore: My rates are very affordable. Has this whole interview just been a consultation on digital media strategy?

Oli and Adam: No… but you should check out our Instagram [@cherwelloxford, for those interested]. 

University begins to clear Pitt Rivers encampment

Cherwell News
-
0
University begins to clear Pitt Rivers encampment

Oxford University is clearing the Natural History Museum lawn, where Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P) built their first encampment, after fencing it off on Sunday morning. The University stated plans to reopen the lawn for public use and said in a statement that it is in communication with the encampment, although this was denied by OA4P.

A video posted by OA4P shows a bulldozer removing the flowerbeds built by the encampment as part of its memorial garden.

The University said they are taking “proactive measures to protect the lawn” after OA4P scheduled a Community Gardening Day event, with plans to build raised beds on the site. Metal fences were erected around the perimeter of the lawn, but members of the encampment still slept there overnight, according to a statement by OA4P on Monday morning.

A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “Over the last week the encampment members were informed on several occasions that there could be no gardening and urgent action was required when they advertised today’s event yesterday morning.”

Signs around the encampment explained that the site was “temporarily closed on public safety grounds and to prevent further damage to university property” and prohibited unauthorised access. They state that property on the lawn will be held in storage until 22nd July 2024, then disposed of.

Protesters are currently still able to enter the site as long as they acknowledge the “health and safety risks”.

In response, OA4P stated: “OA4P is deeply troubled by this blatant attempt to intimidate and shut down peaceful protest, which defies the University’s recently stated commitment to good-faith dialogue.”

Following the removal of flowerbeds at 6:30am this morning, OA4P further stated that they are “especially appalled that the University chose to prioritise the health and visual aesthetics of grass above the wellbeing of its students, its commitment to the right to peaceful protest, and its moral obligation to act against the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.”

The University expressed concerns over the safety of the site, as well as potential damage to the irrigation system: “This land is for everyone at the University and our visitors, and we are taking these steps in the interest of public safety and preserving our own property and collections.”

OA4P said their plans for the lawn were made with “a detailed understanding of the sensitive areas of the land with a commitment to the health and safety of the area.”

The Radcliffe Camera encampment has not been approached by University staff.

How Sabrina Carpenter Won the Summer (With Just Two Songs)

Liz Lane
-
0
How Sabrina Carpenter Won the Summer (With Just Two Songs)

Before 11th April 2024, nobody used the phrase “that’s that me espresso”. Over the summer, however, those very words have been sung, spoken and memed beyond anyone’s wildest imagination. On its surface, the phrase means nothing: the twice repeated “that” and object pronoun “me” give the words a nonsensical quality. If you’ve spent any time online, however, you’ll know that this phrase has come to represent all our hopes and ambitions for the summer. The people called for a shot of espresso and Sabrina Carpenter answered. 

The song “Espresso” was Carpenter’s first number one on the Spotify global charts, it was also number one in the UK charts and, as of late, its music video has received 63 million views on YouTube. In the video, Carpenter dances, tans and relaxes on the beach. Pampered by beautiful extras and waving a gold credit card around, she sings with the confidence of a woman who is used to getting what she wants. As she frolics on the beach in full glam, Carpenter comes to represent the dream of what we all wish Summer 2024 could be. This is a land without terrible dates, hard deadlines and bad weather. It is a realm of abundance, beauty and self-assuredness as Carpenter, skipping through the seawater in a summer dress, sings, “I can’t relate to desperation”. 

The lyrics of “Espresso” are the key to understanding its power. They have a nonchalance and easy-going quality that only comes with knowing your own (extremely high) self-worth. Phrases like “Too bad your ex don’t do it for ya” and “he’s thinkin’ ’bout me every night, oh / Is it that sweet? I guess so” speak to a person who holds all the cards but could drop them easily should she change her mind. Her love interest “won’t stop calling”, he “can’t sleep” and is “thinking” about her every night. Sabrina, meanwhile, is unbothered. Her “‘give a fucks’ are on vacation”. In an age where there is so much to worry about, “Espresso” gives you permission to take it easy. It’s a caffeinated pick-me-up, that “me Espresso”, at a time when it is easy to feel drained.   

After the success of “Espresso”, there was speculation about what Sabrina Carpenter’s next single would be. The Reddit threads opened and the articles abounded. What we got was the mid-tempo single “Please Please Please” paired with the celebrity hard launch of the year. When the music video for “Please Please Please” was released, it caused a sensation online. Barry Keoghan, the Academy Award-nominated actor and boyfriend of Sabrina Carpenter, appeared in the music video as her troublesome but charming love interest. In contrast to the supreme confidence of “Espresso”, “Please Please Please” is all about vulnerability. In it, the singer begs her partner not to “embarrass” her, fearing he’ll damage her ego and bring her “to tears” in the process. At the end of the song, she threatens him with a lesson inherited from Taylor Swift: “If you don’t wanna cry to my music / Don’t make me hate you prolifically”. Here, Carpenter is both revealing her insecurities and flexing her musical prowess. She doubts her boyfriend but never herself. Even at her most insecure, she still appears to exist in a state of power. 

Carpenter’s journey to success has not always been straightforward. Starting out as an actress on the Disney Channel series Girl Meets World, it took a while for her to find her footing in the music industry. In an interview with Variety, she reflected on her “slow rise”: “Throughout my life, [I was] being told, ‘Sabrina, you’re the tortoise, just chill,’ . . . In moments of frustration and confusion it can feel like a letdown, but it turns out it’s actually a very good thing. And I’ve really loved getting to know the mindset of a slow rise.” Moments of cheekiness and controversy have propelled Carpenter to further success. After her music video for “Feather”, which was filmed in a Catholic church, received a backlash, the singer responded with the quip: “Jesus was a carpenter.” Meanwhile, her ad-libbed and often explicit outros for her 2022 song “Nonsense” have garnered further attention online. These viral moments, and her supporting of Taylor Swift on the sold-out Eras Tour, have thrust her firmly into the public consciousness. But beyond these moments of social media frenzy, what is the key to Sabrina Carpenter’s success? Carpenter’s brand has become emblematic of one of the summer’s biggest buzzwords: “unserious”. In a time of political upheaval and economic turmoil where people are still reeling from the profound seriousness of a global pandemic, the term “unserious” has become a crutch for anyone seeking levity in these times. With her playful humour, love of dress-up and cheeky sensibility, Sabrina Carpenter has outwardly become the person we all want to embody this summer: fun, carefree, sun-kissed and unbothered. Her humour is very much a part of that brand. At the end of May, Carpenter put up billboards featuring tweets mocking her height (surely a reference to her new album “Short n’ Sweet”). For her twenty-fifth birthday, her birthday cake went viral when fans spotted that it was decorated with a Leonardo DiCaprio meme. Responding to the success of “Espresso”, Carpenter told Rolling Stone, “I just love that people get my sense of humour.” That sense of humour, in all its unseriousness, has brought the levity that the Summer of 2024 demands.

Macron is right to take on the far-right, even if he loses

Oliver Smith
-
0
Macron is right to take on the far-right, even if he loses

Victories for the far-right no longer shock us, but we cannot normalise this upending of the post-war political settlement. 

The European Parliament, founded to foster peaceful cooperation, has seen far-right parties make considerable gains in recent decades. While the far-right obtained mixed results in the most recent EU election, in Europe’s most powerful countries, they won historic mandates. Nowhere was this felt more keenly than in France, where half of voters opted for parties on the ideological extremes. Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) won more than 31% of the vote, over twice that of Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance party. Then came the French president’s coup de théâtre, a shocking announcement to dissolve the National Assembly and return power to the people. The time has come for French voters to decide whether they truly want a far-right government. 

Macron has always been a political disruptor. His centrist political movement obliterated France’s traditional parties, inadvertently rendering the Rassemblement National the de facto opposition. But even for Macron, this is bold and incredibly risky. He’s in a game of 4D chess, and he might have just played the Von Papen gambit – all but inviting the far-right into government simply because they might be weaker inside the political fray. Infamously, the move did not work out for that particular German chancellor, but at least Macron has decided to take on his far-right opposition directly, which is more than can be said for many moderates across Europe.  

Jordan Bardella, Le Pen’s 28-year-old charismatic protégé, is charged with leading her party to victory in the parliamentary elections. A digital native with over 1.6 million followers on TikTok, Bardella has proved extremely popular with the disaffected youth of France. Despite having little political experience, a third of people aged 18-34 voted for the RN in the EU election. For Macron’s Renaissance party, it was just 5%. While many of those who abstained from the EU elections are sympathetic to the RN’s anti-institutional stance, Macron is banking on the electorate not casting protest votes in a crucial domestic election. Macron’s approval ratings are incredibly low, having hovered around the low thirties for months. For Bardella to succeed in becoming prime minister, it would destroy whatever remains of the once ironclad cordon sanitaire. Jacques Chirac famously refused to debate Jean-Marie Le Pen for the presidency back in 2002, deeming it beyond the pale. Yet this week, Éric Ciotti, the current leader of Chirac’s old centre-right group, Les Républicans, set off a civil war in his ranks by announcing his intention to ally with the far-right. Macron accused Ciotti of making a pact with the devil, and his colleagues moved to oust him from the party.

Macron, for his part, likely believes that he has made an astute political manoeuvre. By surprising the fractured left with a snap election, Macron has made their herculean task to cobble together a functional alliance even more difficult. While the Socialists performed relatively well in the EU elections, closely trailing Macron (and considerably improving on their cataclysmic results in the 2022 presidential election), they will be forced to work with Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the controversial firebrand from La France Insoumise who narrowly missed out on the second round of the presidential election due to disunity on the left. The ideological tussle is already problematic enough before you throw the Communists and Greens into the mix. Thus, Macron is hoping to pick up reluctant left-wing voters, forced to choose between centrist and far-right candidates in the second round of voting, when all but the top two parties have already been eliminated. Macron used this recipe to win the presidency twice. 

Macron lost his parliamentary majority back in 2022 and was likely already planning an election for later in the year. He has clearly calculated that any period of cohabitation (in which the government is led by a party different from that of the president) would be unlikely to make much difference to his frozen legislative ambitions.  For their part, the RN would struggle to pass their domestic agenda, potentially paralysing their momentum in the lead-up to the 2027 presidential election – which Macron cannot participate in due to term limits. Ideally, Macron would like to claw back a parliamentary majority, but realistically, this political manoeuvring is to prevent a future President Le Pen.

Despite the high stakes, Macron is right to have taken a stand, to have refused to normalise the far-right when so many other moderate political parties have made dangerous, self-serving alliances. Given the balkanisation of far-right parties in the EU parliament, it is as important as ever to call out their ideological extremism. The Overton window has gradually shifted; extreme policies have become more mainstream, enabling some in the far-right to rehabilitate their image. Take Le Pen, who booted her father out of the party he once led and changed its name. She recently ejected the AFD, the main far-right party in Germany, from her faction in the EU parliament—Identity and Democracy—after the party’s leader defended members of the Nazi paramilitary group SS. By rendering the AFD “outcasts,” Le Pen positioned herself as the arbiter of acceptability. Giorgia Meloni, meanwhile, has been so successful in toning down her rhetoric on the international stage, working closely with the EU president Ursula von der Leyen, that commentators have started to overlook her party’s post-fascist roots. At least Macron refuses to follow this model of gradual acceptance, whereby moderate parties adopt the policies of the far-right to gain back disaffected voters, in the process becoming the very thing they vowed to destroy.

In such uncertain times, we need decisive leadership and the courage to take a stand. The popularity of the far-right represents a failure of moderate governance, and politicians need to take responsibility for that by charting a new path forward, bringing everyone in society with them. The politics of our age is governed by both emotion and apathy. We must not weaponise the former or fall victim to the latter. As Macron stated in his speech to the nation, it is better to write history than be its victim.

1...848586...2,515Page 85 of 2,515

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley