Sunday 8th June 2025
Blog Page 886

Only the Liberal Democrats can stop a Tory majority

Akshay Bilolikar
-
0
Only the Liberal Democrats can stop a Tory majority

Here we go again. Two years since the nation rejected the prospect of a Labour government and one year since the divisive referendum over our country’s place in the world, Britain will return to the polls on June 8 to cast her verdict on Theresa May’s “Plan for Britain”. The view in Oxford, where 70 per cent of electors voted to remain in the European Union, is not one that is replicated throughout the country—on current polling, the Conservatives are likely to increase their narrow majority and reduce Labour to its lowest number of seats since 1935.

The reality for progressives at this moment is that the Labour coalition of urban liberals, blue-collar workers, and ethnic minorities has been splintered to within an inch of its life by the slow-burn effects of globalisation and the political earthquake of Brexit. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the Labour party languishes twenty points below the Tories in the polls; in any case, the Conservatives are yet to mobilise their arsenal of black magic to attack the Labour brand over socialism, the SNP, and Corbyn’s ambiguous relationship with the IRA.

In any case, it’s not entirely clear whether Labour under Corbyn is the progressive force it claims to be. On Brexit, which threatens to dramatically restrict our ability to make a fairer and more tolerant Britain, Labour has acquiesced to the Tory right over issue after issue. The referendum, which dealt solely with the question of EU membership, has been hijacked by Tory hardliners to push restrictions on immigration and pull Britain out of the single market—and Labour has made no serious effort to oppose this. Election or no election, our tired political system seems hopelessly unable to vocalise the wishes of progressives across the country.

Resigning ourselves to the high likelihood of a Conservative majority would, however, be a dereliction of our democratic duty. There are practical steps to be taken to blunt the edge of the Tory victory. The Conservative majority in 2015 was not built on gains from Labour; in net terms, the Conservatives actually lost a seat to Labour. Rather, the Tories were able to form a majority because of their 27 gains from the Liberal Democrats and the total collapse of Labour in Scotland. With a Conservative revival north of the border, the only viable route to denying the Tories a majority lies in the revival of the Liberal Democrats.

It’s a fightback that has already begun. Since 2015, the party has defied expectations to win council by-elections across the country and overturn Zac Goldsmith’s 23,015 majority in Richmond Park. Meanwhile, the party has been working hard to scrutinise the government in parliament; it was Liberal peers who caused the government’s Lords defeat over a “meaningful vote” on the final Brexit deal. There’s much evidence that the Liberal Democrats pose a credible threat to the Tories: Lynton Crosby is reported to have personally warned May that the party could lose almost all its London and south west gains to deprive it of a majority.

No political party is perfect. The Liberal Democrats in coalition made decisions which, to many voters, felt like a betrayal. Due electoral punishment was delivered. Two years on, however, and the Conservatives now have all but free rein to transform Britain far beyond the mandate of 2015. What matters now is not the past, which cannot be changed, but the future. This involves being smart—looking for Tory weaknesses on our electoral map—and ruthlessly challenging their hard Brexit vision. With only the Liberal Democrats in serious contention to defeat the Tories, there’s no better option for the progressive voter today.

 

Is May’s snap election in the national interest or political opportunism?

Alex Yeandle
-
0
Is May’s snap election in the national interest or political opportunism?

Whilst the announcement of a snap election this morning might have taken politicians, journalists, and the public by surprise, the impetus behind it is not new.

Speculation about an election has been rife since May took office, with the Labour Party on ‘election footing’ since September and the Lib Dems joyful at a chance to tap into the angry vote of the 48 per cent. Let us be in no doubt that this is an incredible U-turn by the Prime Minister, who, up until this point, had insisted, time and time again, that a snap election would not take place. The debate as to whether the PM is violating the spirit of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act will be hard for the Labour Party to press once it votes for an election in parliament tomorrow, but the incentives behind May’s move will remain entirely relevant. Is May actually concerned with the national interest of Great Britain, or are there more cynical reasons at play?

The first option is that May is being totally genuine. In her speech on Tuesday morning, she talked about how opposition parties are trying to subvert the will of the people in parliament, how Britain is uniting but Westminster is not, that, with a strong refreshed mandate from the British people, she can plough through and get the best possible Brexit deal.

This does raise the question, however, as to what the role of opposition parties ought to be in negotiations with the European Union. For all the stick it got at the time, the Labour Party allowed the Article 50 bill to glide through parliament and has made clear that, while it wants to influence Brexit, it has no desire to stop the process.

May’s promise to build a consensus around Britain’s future has clearly fallen on deaf ears, but this is arguably a fault of her own, not the opposition. Maybe calling this election will be seen as a display of weak leadership, an attempt to subvert the views of the millions of Remainers in the UK and to hold a firm, unchallengeable, single-handed grip over one of the biggest political decisions in generations.

May knows that Brexit will be tough. She faces an unprecedented project of reshaping Britain’s relationship with Europe, rewriting and amending 40 years’ worth of EU law and working out trade deals around the globe. At the same time she has to balance a tricky domestic agenda: trying to improve the desperately struggling NHS, push through grammar schools reform, and ensure fiscal policy is in place to protect Britain’s financial sector from the pending uncertainty that it faces.

May will not be able to please everyone, and perhaps this is key to her decision. Go too soft on freedom of movement or European court jurisdiction and lose ground to UKIP. Sever European relations too aggressively and lose support to the Lib Dems. Try to compromise and build consensus and look like you’re going back on your previous words. By 2020, May will surely have made more enemies than she has now, be it on the political left or right, economically open or closed, culturally progressive or traditional. She knows that right now is likely the peak of her popularity, and calling an election allows her to cash in before it starts to fade away.

May’s mind might also be on the recent refocus of the Labour Party. Looking beyond the disastrous voting intention polls and the fact that ‘Don’t Know’ is a more popular potential Prime Minister than the Labour leader, be in no doubt that the recent policy blitz, unveiled by Jeremy Corbyn in preparation for the upcoming local elections, is popular. Proposals for an increased minimum wage and universal free school meals are supported by large majorities of the public and this will perhaps be concerning for the Prime Minister. Perhaps May believes that, if given until 2020, Corbyn would be able to successfully shape Britain’s political narrative to his policy agenda, building on a quite possible post-Brexit economic downturn and sustained anti-establishment anger. Maybe Corbyn would, in the long run, transcend his image of incredulity and mount a credible challenge to the Conservatives on the grounds of winning the hearts and minds of voters.

Finally, but no less importantly, the Conservative party faces verdicts on the multiple allegations of fraudulent election spending.

With dozens of cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and the very real possibility of nullified constituency results and criminal sentencing of MPs and their agents, the Tories will be keen to make the most of their popularity before the potential public outcry reaches its peak. With a working majority of 17, a dozen simultaneous by-elections would be dangerous territory for May. With a working majority of 100 they would become effectively meaningless.

We will never know for sure what led the Prime Minister to make, as Nicola Sturgeon calls it, “one of the most extraordinary U-turns in recent political history”. We won’t know whether May is genuinely enmeshed within a power struggle over Brexit and needs to tighten her grip over proceedings, or whether she is truly interested in exchanging her party’s current support-by-default for seats before it diminishes.

Either way, it appears that a Conservative landslide is likely, that the Tories will continue to dominate British politics, and that May will be in Number Ten for at least another five years.

A turning point in French politics

Romain Civalleri
-
0
A turning point in French politics

The upcoming French elections have been held by some media, such as the Economist, as a turning-point in Western politics, with the two major parties that have alternated at the head of the state since the start of the fifth republic in 1958 predicted to lose to one of the three underogs: Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and Emmanuel Macron.

The striking element, common to the success that these three campaigns have had so far, is an intense criticism of the French political landscape. Marine Le Pen, just like her father, has always thrived by criticizing French politics for being a system in the hands of an establishment, coining the phrase “UMPS” to describe how the UMP (rebranded The Republicans last year) and the Socialist Party kept alternating in power, with very little difference in the decisions that they took. It is however unlikely that she would win, given the strong support for a ‘popular front’ against the FN that is shared by the left, the centre and a portion of the right.

However, the idea that the right and the left have become two sides of a same coin has deeply permeated the French electorate. Indeed, since Mitterrand had to abandon his Keynesian program two years into his presidency to turn to a much more pragmatic austerity phase from 1983 onwards, both socialists and republicans have had very similar approaches to economic policy, embodied by the El Khomri law presented by the Hollande government supporting a neo-liberal simplification of the employment-related legislation. It is important to note that the article was passed by decree by the government, despite massive popular uprisings and parliamentary opposition.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon is the product of this disappearance of a properly militant left. He proposed to indebt the country by up to 100 billion in order to finance initiatives in new technologies and sustainable development, as well as stated, in a highly contradictory manner, that he would refuse to pay back the debt that France incurred over the years from international financial institutions. Finally, his will to cap the revenues of the highest earners to twenty times the salary of the worst paid employee clearly shows that he pictures himself as the renewal of the left, of its true values and its militantism. It thus seems that Mélenchon has been gaining in momentum to the point of having a non-negligible probability of reaching the second round of the presidential elections, as a consequence of branding himself a more genuine socialist.

In this landscape, Macron can be seen as the embodiment of the centrist liberalism that has guided French politics for 60 years. However, there are two sides to his campaign. The first is that of the liberal ex-minister, with a history of dealing with the patronal elites. The second side is almost populist: he inscribed himself in the popular opposition to the idea of a political class. He has proudly held his experience as a private banker as a sign that he has been in touch with the reality, and the structure of his new movement, En Marche, is based on popular support and aims at presenting people with no former political experience to most local elections. The fact that Macron did not even have a programme a few weeks ago shows that he wants to be elected as this central, liberal pragmatist.

This election has shown a polarisation of French politics, as well as increasing levels of populism, leading some people like Mélenchon to argue that a whole new political system, a Sixth Republic, is necessary. It is highly probable that the next French Parliament, elected in June, will have to prove its ability to work despite the absence of clear cut majority. This entails that career politicians will have to actually participate in a democratic debate rather than playing the political game of perpetual virtue-signalling conflict between opposition and majority,. The Nuit Debout initiative, inciting Parisians to debate together on the streets, has shown that a significant portion of the French population feels like the people themselves should be placed back at the centre of democracy, which is impossible under the current constitution. Quite paradoxically, this election, highly influenced by the deep and increasingly well perceived problems of the Fifth Republic, may be the one that saves it by giving it an opportunity to reform itself. Populist movements have clearly signalled that the French people has had enough of its elites. Some things never change.

Yangon University is modelled on Oxford, but there are no dreaming spires

Mia Millman
-
0
Yangon University is modelled on Oxford, but there are no dreaming spires

Walking around Yangon, though there are the affluent areas and fast food restaurants that exist in nearly all big cities, these areas are few and far between. Poverty pervades in this former capital city to a greater extent than in many of its Southeast Asian counterparts. The military regime, though removed in 2013, has had lasting effects on Burma (also known as Myanmar) and especially on its education. In Oxford—in the UK in general—we take our right to an education for granted. For certain periods during the last 50 years, university education in Burma was neither a right nor a luxury—it did not exist.

Universities, especially large ones, provide an opportunity for political discontent to manifest and for groups to mobilise. Oxford has been at the heart of student unrest many times in the past. The University of Yangon, too, is a prime example of this: in 1988, the 8888 Uprising—which occurred on 8th August 1988 (8/8/88)—began as student protests at Yangon University. It was during these protests that Aung San Suu Kyi became established as a source of hope and possible future leader of the country. In the aftermath of the uprising she co-founded a pro-democracy party, of which she remains president, that governs Burma today. This infamous uprising protested against the socialist autocracy which, with General Ne Win as leader, had ruled the country since 1962. The immediate response to the uprising by the government was a massacre of protestors. Officially, several hundred died as a result of the 8888 Uprising. Unofficially, the number was in the thousands.

The immediate impact of the uprising was clearly devastating, but the long-term impact can still be felt today. In response to the uprising, to prevent further mobilisation, the government shut down both Yangon and Mandalay University. The exact length of time for which the universities were closed is ambiguous, due to censorship. It appears that the universities were shut twice: once for roughly four years, immediately after the 1988 protests, and again just before the turn of the millennium. A quick Google search suggests that the second closure was brief, but speaking to people residing in Yangon tells a different story. Of the many people I asked, very few could give me a specific answer. The majority of the conversations I had went something along the lines of: “When did they reopen the university?”, “Not long ago”,“How long ago?”, ”Not long”.

The clearest answer I received suggests that, while the university has officially been open again since roughly 2000, they only reopened the accommodation. It was only just before Obama’s first state visit in 2012 that the university began running graduate lectures and classes again. It took even longer for undergraduate courses.

Though the main Yangon University central campus temporarily reopened in the 1990s, protests in 1996 again led to its closure and it remained intermittently closed for some time after that. Even at the bare minimum, using official figures which are likely to be an under-estimation, there are at least five school year groups who were not given the opportunity of a university education. International options at the time were equally scarce with the political regime barring most opportunities to leave and study abroad. Only the rare few in financially and politically privileged positions would have been a afforded the opportunity.

There was no option to look around at university open days, to have the dilemma over what course to apply for, to worry that you would not find the right university or that, when you found the right one, they would reject you—there was no university. By 1988, there were more than 50 universities established in the United Kingdom. Oxford had been established long, long before that. In 1988, Oxford was little different to what it is today. Oxford students still had their tutorials, went to bops, and were coerced into attending their JCR meetings with the promise of free food.

The University of Yangon, when established in 1848, was modelled on the University of Oxford. It had been one of the most prestigious universities in Asia. And yet in 1988, and the years that followed, it lost its prestige. There were no tutorials and no opportunities for formal education beyond school, not in that university nor anywhere in Burma. Yangon University was modelled on Oxford, but it had neither the same dreams nor spires.

Though Yangon University has been intermittently closed since 1988, it is no longer one of just two universities in the country. Even before the uprisings, the military regime converted the faculties into separate state-run universities which operated from the central campus, essentially functioning as a single university. After the closure however, when the government felt it safe to at least partially reopen, these faculties acted as separate universities. As the government refused to reopen the central campus out of fear of students mobilising once again, they opened these universities—now much smaller—in outer regions of the city. The university buildings were constructed quickly and in areas where there was little else other than these buildings. By keeping students separated, they prevented them from mobilising.

Decentralising the university, along with other actions by the government, has had lasting effects upon the quality of the education. When talking to people from Burma, though I could find little consensus on when the university reopened, one thing was clear—the education today still is not as good as it was before 1988.

The government didn’t just employ this tactic of fragmentation with universities–the same was done with places of worship. Burma is a religious country with 87.9 per cent of people being Buddhist, the majority of whom actively practice the religion.

Despite the large number of practicing Buddhists, the tradition and its places of worship are fragmented throughout the city and country. This is at least partly to prevent groups being able to mobilise against the government. To see such blatant disregard of crucial aspects of society, of education and of religion, purely for the purpose of maintaining power is something hard to stomach. Regardless of whether we agree with our current government’s agenda, their actions are not solely motivated by a desire to repress discontent–they aren’t that self-destructive. The same cannot be said in Burma.

We can’t know for certain exactly how much of an impact the university closure had on the city, as well as the rest of the country, but it is not insubstantial. For many, the best education still lies abroad and, though getting a visa may be easier than in the 1980s, the financial burden of an international education means that only the richest have access to a good education.

There is some good news. Following the dissolution of the military regime in 2011, there has been increased autonomy and investment in Yangon University. In 2013, they even started welcoming back undergraduates for the first time since the 1980s. The university may remain fragmented but it is slowly being restored. The benefits of improved education will take time but the effects will be lasting. Who knows, in the future the university modelled on Oxford may hold a similar prestige.

For now, Burma remains a product of the past governments’ failures. Education is still considered a luxury and a novelty—it is an opportunity which large portions of the adult population missed out on completely. Yangon University had been deemed a ‘bastion of academic freedom’. Though the doors of the university are now reopened, opportunities for education are still limited.

Education is such an ingrained aspect of all our lives that the concept of its non-availability is unfathomable. We complain about endless reading lists and essay crises on a daily basis, but we all had the opportunity and privilege to choose them. We should be grateful that it is an essay deadline that we’re missing rather than the opportunity to study at all.

Oxford pollution levels break health rules

Theo Davies-Lewis
-
0
Oxford pollution levels break health rules

Air pollution levels in Oxford breached international health rules at the beginning of 2017, an investigation by The Times has revealed.

The levels of nitrogen dioxide, which can cause cancer, exceeded both European Union and World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines.

While levels of nitrogen oxide are supposed to be kept below 40 micrograms per cubic metre of air, the average level of nitrogen dioxide between January and the end of March was 48 micrograms per cubic metre in the city.

The latest figures have led to more calls for a crackdown on diesel cars—which are among the leading producers of nitrogen dioxide.

A number of solutions have been proposed in Oxford, including the introduction of “driverless cars”. Reports earlier this moth suggested that driverless cars could be operating in Oxford city centre from as early as 2017. Oxbotica, a spin-out company from the University’s Robotics Institute, has begun to trial the vehicles in London and plans to continue the experiment in Oxford. Oxford is one of 26 areas of 146 that reached nitrogen dioxide levels that breached EU legislation and WHO guidelines. The Oxford Mail revealed in November that the amount of harmful nitrogen dioxide in the most polluted part of the city—St Clements—rose three per cent between 2014 and 2015, from 65 micrograms per cubic metre to 67. However, roadside levels of nitrogen dioxide have dropped by an average of 35 per cent across the city in the last ten years in Oxford.

Jonathan Grigg, professor of paediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, and founding member of Doctors Against Diesel, said there was “overwhelming proof” of the harm caused by air pollution, saying: “diesel fleets should be removed from the roads as soon as possible.”

Professor Grigg added: “Exposure over a very long time has an insidious effect. It suppresses the lung growth of children; it’s involved in the onset of asthma, a decline in lung function as you age; and there’s emerging evidence of it causing cognitive problems and also reduced growth of foetuses.”

Speaking to Cherwell, Dr Christian Brand, Senior Research Fellow and Associate Professor at the Environmental Change Institute, responded to the findings, saying: “Generally, I think we have less of an air pollution problem than is often advertised—especially when compared to London, Paris, or Delhi, Beijing.

“Exceedance occurs only in a few hot spots with high traffic flows of diesel buses and London style, Hackney carriage taxis. While annual hourly means of NO2 concentrations are 20 percent above legal limits at 48 micrograms per cubic metre, it is worth remembering that the two roadside monitoring stations measuring these levels are near bus stops—with buses queuing and diesel engines idling.

“So, a pragmatist could just move the local AQ monitoring stations away from bus stops and further up the high street and St Aldate’s—just not next to bus stops.”

Dr Brand added: “The other point to make is that one of the best ways to reduce population exposure to nitrogen dioxide and other key pollutants is to shield pedestrians and other road users from the pollution.

“For example, some public transport stations have plexiglass tunnels, shields and sliding doors that only open when people are alighting or boarding. I am not suggesting this is pretty or feasible but certainly an option.”

A spokesman for the University told Cherwell: “The poor air quality in the City is a concern for the University, which has set in place measures in its Transport Strategy.

“The University has taken action to encourage staff and students to travel to work by sustainable modes and has taken steps to enable staff to travel on business within the City by pedal cycle, electric bikes and mass transit options. The University is also replacing diesel fleet vehicles with Ultra Low Emission equivalents.”

The Oxford Student Green Party issued a statement, saying: “The Oxford Greens have consistently worked to reduce Nitrogen Dioxide levels in the City, by discouraging driving in the centre and calling for sensible organisation of bus routes.

“This is merely further evidence that authorities have failed to treat a life-threatening problem seriously. With the problem growing ever more prominent, Oxford’s people have a chance to make this a significant issue in upcoming elections.”

The findings from the investigation come as the government prepares to publish its plans to improve air quality, after the High Court ruled last year that the current plan was inadequate—ordering a replacement to be produced by 24 April.

Life Divided: Unpacking

Rosa Thomas and Jamie Onslow
-
0
Life Divided: Unpacking

Rosa Thomas: For

Unsurprisingly, if you ask most people at Oxford, they would not put unpacking six times a year at the top of their list of favourite university traditions. I’ll admit it, perhaps packing doesn’t have the hedonism of trashing, the sophistication of matriculation or the rich history of Merton’s ‘Time Ceremony’, but I’m willing to bet that the process has had much more of an effect on your time at Oxford than you might think.

For one thing, packing provides a glimmer of hope that you may, just for once, have your life organised. For the other seven weeks of term I find myself living in a constant state of chaos. By second week clothing will be rammed in my desk drawer, pens will be in biscuit tins, and, my socks will never be seen again. I become accustomed to a life where seeing the floor is like meeting someone who likes Lola Lo’s; rare and fascinating. But, for the first blissful days of term everything is perfectly organised.

Unpacking is my sole chance in eight weeks of madness to have my life together, find the things I’ve lost and remember that normal people do not keep their tutorial notes inside a spare pillow case on the floor. The pillow case may be a rather extreme example. However, I do refuse to believe that every Oxford student manages to keep their rooms in perfect, regimented order, all term.

You may complain about packing, but I’m guessing you’ve found more than a few important old essays in the great 0th week unpack. The process doesn’t just allow you to organise your life, it makes Oxford feel like home. It’s hard to deny that your college room feels quite different every time you’ve finished unpacking. I may be a university cliché, but after taking out my fairy lights, sticking up my photos and unloading my varied cushion collection, term doesn’t feel quite so daunting, and home never feels quite so far away.

Jamie Onslow: Against

Each time I return to Oxford after the vac, my feelings of almost pant-wetting excitement are tempered by the knowledge that before I can gaily dive into the fun-filled bonanza that is life at our university, I must first go through the ordeal of unpacking. The first item to be unpacked is, in fact, myself. As is common practice, at the end of every Oxford term the head porter rubs me down with goose fat and pushes me into a tight-fitting wooden box. Any remaining space is filled with items, read yet mostly-unread, from my reading list.

The lack of light within the box precludes actually reading anything, and I instead absorb books through my feet and into my bloodstream, much like a phagocyte might absorb a suspicious-looking amoeba. However, just as a foetus knows when the time is ripe to slide forth into the world, as soon as term begins I instinctively slither out of my box. I writhe around naked on the floor, temporarily blinded by intense daylight, with half-absorbed Russian classics protruding out of my legs.

Luckily I am not alone, as much like the hatching of baby turtles, all undergraduates emerge from their boxes simultaneously, and thrash around on main quad until they can walk. Much as a new born calf soon hobbles to his feet, or a butterfly emerges from a cocoon, I am soon ready to undertake the more serious task of unpacking the various items that I use in my daily routine. As 0th week comes around I often consider staying within the oaky confines of my box. However, it is common knowledge that throughout history few have achieved greatness from within the confines of a greasy box, and so I reluctantly nibble my way out, ready for some learning.

OxFilm: your script

Una O'Sullivan
-
0
OxFilm: your script

Getting the right script is a crucial first step in making any student film. It’s common for student filmmakers to decide that they want to make a film, and then immediately jump to the camera they want, the budget they’ll have, and the cool shots they want to incorporate—the story comes after, and it frequently shows in the final product.

So, first things first, write a script. It doesn’t need to be a summer blockbuster material—it can be as wacky as you want, but make sure it’s been redrafted enough times to have reached the necessary degree of polish. Remember, this script will end up on a screen, so if you feel like adding throwaway lines or a half-hearted conversation about the weather to fill some space, think again—every line counts!

While you’re at it, consider your poor audience in the cinema. Do they really want to sit through an avant-garde realisation of the experiences of a greenfly? Would you? Even if you don’t want the audience to enjoy your film—there could be other emotions you want to provoke—writing a script that tells a compelling story is essential to kickstart your project. Without a good script, there’s no point in filming.

Blind Date: The only way to cope with these inadequacies was to drink more”

Life Team
-
0
Blind Date: The only way to cope with these inadequacies was to drink more”

Priya Khaira-Hanks, 2nd year, English, St Catz

My evening with Jamie started and ended with gossip—at the beginning, we chatted about Gossip Girl, and, a few hours and drinks later, were exchanging juicy details about certain mutual acquaintances. Jamie also divulged to me what really happens at Christ Church: coming from a mere proletarian college, I was astounded that, instead of Freshers’ week, first years are told the dark secrets of privilege and made to sign a confidentiality agreement, promising never to let slip who drowned in champagne at that ball in the nineties. We exchanged our fatal flaws—for him, country music, for me, cheese—and the fact that neither of us can drive. The only way to cope with these inadequacies was to drink more, and I ended up embarking on an impassioned polemic about Holly and Phil on This Morning. And, if ranting about daytime TV isn’t winning date etiquette, I’m not sure what is.

First impression? Punctual!

Chat? 76% banter, 24% French Revolution

Personality? Destroyed my anti-ChCh prejudice

2nd date? Holly Willoughby is a hard act to beat

Jamie Horton, 2nd year, History, Christ Church

The fortune cookie I opened at dinner prior to the date (something about a lettuce wrap) didn’t provide me with the encouragement I was hoping for and so I ventured with some trepidation to Turf. Nevertheless, I was soon put at ease by Priya’s friendliness, and I really felt like I was making progress when my confessed admiration for country music got me likened to her mum. Sensing my bad boy image was under threat, I panicked somewhat and claimed to be running an Escobar-style drug cartel from my college room. Her lack of surprise that such an operation existed inside Christ Church said a lot. Whilst we were bonding over our lack of ability to drive, I felt the time was right for a high-risk, high-reward gambit. Unfortunately, the revelation that I lived next to the busiest bus route in Europe (Wilmslow Road, Manchester) proved not to be the winner I hoped it would be.

First impression? This might be quite fun

Chat? On point

Personality? Genuinely lovely!

2nd date? Not holding my breath

 

If you would like to go on a Blind Date, get in touch with the life editors

Warren Gatland selects controversial Lions squad for upcoming summer tour

Theo Davies-Lewis
-
0
Warren Gatland selects controversial Lions squad for upcoming summer tour

British and Irish Lions Head Coach Warren Gatland has named a controversial squad for the upcoming Lions tour to New Zealand this summer.

The 41-man squad includes sixteen Englishmen, twelve Welshmen, eleven Irishmen, but only two Scots.

The appointment of Sam Warburton as captain was not a surprise, however, after a promotional photo of the Welsh flanker leaked online earlier this week.

He is seen as a steady hand by rugby coaches, and is only the second player, after England World Cup Winner Martin Johnson, to captain two Lions tours.

However, what has led to anger amongst fans is that Warburton will be joined by eleven other Welshman—who, on the whole, performed poorly in this year’s Six Nations. The selection of Leigh Halfpenny and Dan Biggar in particular seems to suggest that Gatland has also considered previous performances in his selection process of rugby players, not only their current form.

Despite this, Ken Owens, consistently seen as the underdog during his playing career for the Llanelli Scarlets and Wales, can be assured he has been selected purely on his extraordinary form during the Six Nations championship earlier this year.

While Welsh fans may complain that there are not even more of their countrymen in the squad, it will be hard for them not to acknowledge the brilliant form of many English players in the squad: Mako Vunipola’s power will add intensity to the pack, Owen Farrell’s flair and kicking game will test the New Zealand defence, and Anthony Watson’s pace will be a necessity if the Lions hope to break the ferocious All Black gameline.

Yet, the squad’s announcement also produced more major shocks. The first was the exemption of England captain Dylan Hartley. The England captain’s omission means that he is the third consecutive England captain not to have been named in the Lions touring party, following Steve Borthwick and Chris Robshaw’s omissions in 2009 and 2013. While his aggression and competitiveness often gets the better of him, the fact that Hartley captained England to a record-equalling streak of 18 matches without defeat suggests his omission is unfair and strange.

As well as this, notable English players Mike Brown, Joe Launchbury and George Ford were absent from Gatland’s Lions squad, while Ben Te’o, who made his Test debut in 2016, was included in the bold squad announcement on April 19.

While the inclusion of eleven Irishman such as Jonny Sexton, Rory Best and Conor Murray will be welcomed across the home nations, Scottish fans have rightly objected to Gatland’s decision to include only two players from their impressive Six Nations campaign: Stuart Hogg and Tommy Seymour.

Speaking on BT Sport’s Facebook page after the announcement, former Ireland captain and Lions player Brian O’Driscoll conceded that Scotland were unlucky not to have more players in the touring party: “Beat Ireland, beat Wales—if I was Scottish I would feel hard done by. It’s the first time since 1908 they haven’t had a representative in the pack.”

Overall, Gatland and his coaching staff surprised the public and the world’s media. The Lions face a daunting task: attempting to topple the greatest rugby side (perhaps even the greatest sporting side) the world has ever seen. On top of this, the demanding schedule facing the British players has raised concerns: only this week former All Blacks and Lions coach Sir Graham Henry described the 10-match schedule as ‘suicidal’.

As well as this, the 2011 World Cup-winning coach has warned Gatland that Wales’ 40-7 humiliation against the Chiefs in Hamilton in 2016 shows many of the pitfalls of playing midweek matches against Super Rugby outfits.

The last few months of British rugby have been incredibly exciting, and if the drama surrounding this selection is anything to go by, the Lions tour itself should be one of the best in recent memory.

The Lions will arrive in New Zealand on Wednesday, May 31, four days before their first match against the New Zealand Provincial Barbarians in Whangarei on June 3.

The full squad is as follows:

Forwards: Rory Best (IRL), Jack McGrath (IRL), Dan Cole (ENG), Ross Moriarty (WAL), Taulupe Faletau (WAL), Sean O’Brien (IRL), Tadhg Furlong (IRL), Peter O’Mahoney (IRL), Jamie George (ENG), Ken Owens (WAL), Iain Henderson (IRL), Kyle Sinckler (ENG), Maro Itoje (ENG), CJ Stander (IRL), Alun Wyn Jones (WAL), Justin Tipuric (WAL), George Kruis (ENG), Billy Vunipola (ENG), Courtney Lawes (ENG), Mako Vunipola (ENG), Joe Marler (ENG), Sam Warburton (WAL)

Backs: Dan Biggar (WAL), Jack Nowell (ENG), Elliot Daly (ENG), Jared Payne (IRL), Jonathan Davies (WAL), Jonathan Sexton (IRL), Owen Farrell (ENG), Tommy Seymour (SCO), Leigh Halfpenny (WAL), Ben Te’o (ENG), Robbie Henshaw (IRL), Anthony Watson (ENG), Stuart Hogg (SCO), Rhys Webb (WAL), Jonathan Joseph (ENG), Liam Williams (WAL), Conor Murray (IRL), Ben Youngs (ENG), George North (WAL)

Irresponsible escapists and the architecture of power

Thomas Thorne
-
0
Irresponsible escapists and the architecture of power

Why do schools, prisons, and mental asylums look so strikingly similar? This question has troubled intellectuals from Franz Kafka to Michel Foucault. The ‘architecture of power’, with its drab hallways and isolating cells, seems almost ideally designed to sap its subjects of individuality. Yet reality refuses to comply. Far from reforming their charges, these institutions all too often instil in us a profound hatred of conformity, an anti-authoritarian recalcitrance—a desire, in a word, for escape.

People with a mission to ‘save the world’ often dismiss escapism as a distraction from serious work.

In a less troubled time, they say, they might indulge in the frivolities of sex, drugs, and art—but what we need right now is responsibility. Only by submitting our desires to a higher purpose can we advance toward a decent society.

Don’t believe me? Then look at how the views of cultural conservatives and many left-wing radicals converge on pornography, gangsta rap, and offensive humour, to name only a few of their mutual bugbears. These sources of pleasure are ‘sinful’, or ‘problematic’, and they ought to be controlled. If shame fails to keep us from degrading ourselves, say the champions of responsible progress, then we might need rules to regulate these dangerous forms of escapism.

And make no mistake: from the public moralist’s point of view, escapism is dangerous. Some of the most liberating changes in our everyday lives were made possible by escapists.

The advocates of responsibility (and its natural partner, respectability) have won important fights of their own, which I don’t mean to belittle. In their struggles to improve the world, however, they have often stood in the way of very real improvements brought about by the urge to escape.

The protestors who burned their draft cards at the height of the Vietnam War, the hippies who dropped acid and slept with total strangers in Golden Gate Park, and the gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transfolk who pelted the police with rocks outside the Stonewall Inn—were they being responsible?

Of course not. They were breaking the rules, writing better ones, escaping into their own lives, their own bodies, their own pleasures. But in doing so, they battled for basic human freedoms which many of us now take for granted. In much of the developed world, conscription is unthinkable. It’s alright to have sex without any thought of marriage—and in a growing number of states and cities, you can now smoke marijuana without punishment. And while there is still progress to be made in the acceptance of queer people, who could deny that we are freer today than we were a few decades ago? As I see it, ‘irresponsible escapists’ of various kinds have made the world a much better place.

This is not to say that responsibility is a bad thing, or that we should spend our whole lives ‘running from reality’. There is a place for marches, speeches, campaigns—and for people to organise them. The world needs leaders to make certain lasting changes.

Take the struggles of the civil rights era. Very few people alive today would argue that Martin Luther King’s leadership was anything short of heroic. Even by the standards of those who opposed him, King was a man of sound moral convictions and a publically sterling character. (We may ignore his private hypocrisies, which were not revealed until after his death and did not detract from his work.) His respectable conduct and status as a Protestant minister bolstered his arguments and drew many supporters who might otherwise have found his message threatening.

Even so, escapism remains a powerful force of transgression. It shouldn’t surprise us that The Lord of the Rings was the bible of ‘60s counterculture. Nor should we find it strange that the great socialist William Morris was also the father of modern fantasy fiction, or that the early leaders of the Labour Party (John Robert Clynes especially) drew inspiration from the medievalist art critic, John Ruskin.

So it’s no wonder that we fill our lives with ‘escape hatches.’ These can take many forms: as fiction, music, poetry, artwork, sex, dance, gaming—the list could continue without end. What they all have in common is the power to challenge the ordinary, to lift us out of our day-to-day boredom and show us new possibilities, new feelings, new worlds.

A life spent apart from the hard reality would likely leave most of us miserable. Huxley’s Brave New World comes to mind, as does Homer’s island of lotus-eaters. But a life without escapism is an even bleaker prospect: the windowless walls of a prison cell, perfectly built from the slabs of ‘hard work’ and the mortar of ‘responsibility’.

 

1...885886887...2,508Page 886 of 2,508

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