This Thursday night, the Oxford Union voted against the motion “This House believes Ukraine should negotiate with Russia to end the war now.” The final count had 71 members voting for the motion and 171 members voting against.
Speaking for the motion were third-year Theology student Finley Armstrong of Regent’s Park College, second-year Magdalen PPE student James Lawson, and Aniket Chakravorty of New College – who recently placed first in the World Debating Championships.
Opposing the motion were former Chief of the Defence Staff of the British Armed Forces Lord Houghton of Richmond and Ross Skowronski, founder of Mission Kharkiv – an organisation which has facilitated the transportation of over 70 tons of life-saving pharmaceuticals to Ross’ native Kharkiv since the war began. First-year History and Politics student Rachel Haddad of Balliol College also spoke against the motion.
Opening the case for the proposition, Finley Armstrong described Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as “the largest attack on a European country since World War Two.” He told the audience that everyone was in agreement that the war must end at some point. “The question is when and how.”
Armstrong touched on the lack of success Ukraine has had in its counteroffensive which it launched against Russia in June 2023 before discussing the current lack of artillery among Ukrainian troops – while Russia has mobilised arms production to be able to fire 10,000 rounds per day, Ukraine is only capable of firing 2,000. He emphasised that, although the “international community has demonstrated an unprecedented level of solidarity with Ukraine,” aid is not an inexhaustible resource and is subject to political contingencies. He asked the audience “How long should we allow this brutal war to continue before accepting that Ukrainian victory – whatever that may look like – is unlikely?” Armstrong urged the audience to vote for the proposition: “By voting for opposition you are voting for … continued violence and bloodshed as the answer.”
Rachel Haddad began the case for opposition on a personal note, telling the audience “Almost two years ago today, Russia invaded my country Ukraine.” She stated further that Russia is currently waging an offensive in her grandmother’s town and that her family is forced to “endure the horrors of this conflict every single day.”
After introducing the proposition speakers, Haddad outlined her central thesis by declaring “I do not believe Ukraine should be negotiating with a terrorist state, which does not recognise, let alone respect, the sovereignty [of Ukraine].” She ran through the historical record and Russia’s previous abrogation of non-aggression treaties with Ukraine. In particular, she spoke of the Budapest Memorandum signed by Ukraine in 1994 which exchanged its nuclear arsenal for security guarantees – guarantees she stated that Russia subsequently violated. According to Haddad, peace talks with Russia are impossible since “negotiating with Russia is like negotiating with Hitler himself.” She concluded her speech by citing the words of a Ukrainian poet who urged Ukrainians to “keep fighting.”
Speaking second for the proposition, James Lawson began his speech by taking issue with Haddad’s categorical stance against negotiations with terrorists. He asked audience members what they would do if a terrorist had captured a loved one at gunpoint and the only way to save them was through negotiations. He argued that the only sensible path in such a situation would be to at least consider entering negotiations.
Lawson’s central argument revolved around Ukraine’s reliance on the West – both now and in the future – and how avoiding negotiations with Russia would hinder the post-war recovery effort. He argued that the West would have to provide substantial economic aid to Ukraine but that continuing the war creates costs that hinder the West’s assistance in a future “Marshall Plan-like” recovery program. In addition to discussing economic problems which arise from avoiding negotiations, Lawson touched on political problems. While the West initially rallied behind Ukraine at the start of the war, according to Lawson “that cooperation is crumbling… newspapers are growing tired of the war.” He concluded by reiterating his call for reasonable negotiations.
Ross Skowronski continued the case for the opposition, describing the war in Ukraine “as one of the cruellest wars ever.” His argument centred on Russian motives in waging war against Ukraine – according to Skowronski, since negotiations are only possible when each party offers something of value to the other and Russia is only motivated by “the land and the people” of Ukraine, negotiations are doomed to fail. Skowronsky stated further that negotiations were unwarranted since they are unlikely to be respected if Russian elites’ sources of income are left undisturbed.
Closing the case for the proposition, Aniket Chakravorty began his argument by stating that self-determination is the most important objective for Ukranians. According to Chakravorty, this self-determination can only be achieved through a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, which, in turn, can only be achieved through an opening of negotiations.
Chakravorty argued further that the greatest hindrance to the Ukrainian war effort is the lack of continuous training for Ukrainian troops and the dearth of missiles and other weaponry in the army. Given the opposition of Congressional Republicans to Ukrainian aid, Chakravorty argued that the dynamics of the war are unlikely to change any time soon. He predicted, however, that American policy could change following a Ukrainian commitment to negotiations, since “Western support is likely to increase to Ukraine when there is a clear endgame in mind.”
Lord Houghton of Richmond closed the case for the opposition. He began by stating that, “despite advances in the human condition that we have made… I do fear that our world remains a most imperfect place.” Lord Houghton argued that, although Europeans have not seen such fighting since the Second World War, seeking a premature peace “despite many of its attractions” would not be in the long-term interests of Ukraine and the West.
Lord Houghton then enumerated three assumptions under which Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine: his assessment of the strength of Russian troops, his assessment of the weakness of Ukrainian troops, and his belief that NATO would not intervene sufficiently on Ukraine’s behalf. According to Houghton, Putin was wrong on all three counts, and Russia has failed in its war effort. To continue deterring Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Houghton argued “we should be ever more confident in supplying Ukraine with the military resources it needs.” At the end of his speech, Lord Houghton addressed the audience directly: “The way you vote tonight sends a message. It sends a message to Putin, and it sends a message to the people of Ukraine. Please do not send the wrong one.”
Cherwell’s “Sextigation” is back and better than ever. After 450 responses and some pretty groundbreaking analysis that followed, the results are in.
This year, 55% of respondents were female, 38.5% were male, and 5.6% were non-binary. In a slight dip from last year’s survey, the (mean) average number of sexual partners comes in at 4.5, compared with the 5 from last year. Taking a closer look at the numbers yields a different picture. For female students, the mean average is 3.9 sexual partners, with a median of 2. The mean male student has had 5.2 partners with a median of 2 as well. Non-binary students come out on top with an average of 6.2 sexual partners, with a median of 3.
However, not all students share the same experiences. 13.2% of Oxford students have had no sex since matriculating, with 9.9% of students having never had sex before. The most common number of sexual partners for an Oxford student, since being at Oxford, was 1, at 28.9%.
As they say, good things come in threes. 69 respondents (lol) claimed to have had sex with two or more people at once, with 18 students confessing to a threesome, 4 to a foursome, and 1 to a five-and-sixsome respectively. Having googled the term ‘orgy’ to find it constitutes 4 or more people, perhaps having that as a single category would have sufficed. However, the survey’s level of detail was not lost on the two adventurous students who clocked in with a tensome each.
Knocking St Peter’s from their throne, this year, Regent’s Park took the trophy for sexiest college, with their students averaging a whopping 11.7 sexual partners since being at Oxford. Close in the runnings were Catz, Anne’s and Worcester, whose students averaged 9.8, 8.6 and 6.9 sexual partners respectively. At the other end, Blackfriars, Kellogg, St Cross and Harris Manchester came bottom of the pile, doing a disservice to Dominicans, post-grads and mature students everywhere.
Whilst Peter’s has been relegated to the middle of the pile, Merton, who came second in last year’s survey, is the undergraduate college whose students have had the fewest sexual partners since matriculation, averaging just over 2. Clearly, the singular Mertonian who drove up the average last year has since moved on to bigger and better things.
As for satisfaction levels, this year has seen Oxford graduate from 2023’s ‘mid’ to an average score of 3.5/5. In fact, an encouraging majority of students (82%) would rate their sex lives at a 3/5 or above. Even so, some people had gripes with the “conservative” nature of Oxford’s sex scene, with one student expressing frustration: “too! Vanilla!!!”. Breaking down satisfaction ratings by college reveals a more marked difference, too. While Queen’s students rate their sex lives 4.4/5 , bad news for LMH students who sit at the bottom of the pile with an average rating of 2.6/5.
This year, Geography takes the lead as the top-shagging degree, boasting a whopping 14.7 average number of sexual partners since coming to Oxford. This is followed by Biology (13.5), English and Modern Languages (7.8), Law (7.6), and Biomedical Sciences (7.5). This is almost an exact return to 2022’s “degrees which get the most action”, with last year’s top shaggers, the medics, taking a backseat. Geography has been the only degree consistently in the top 5 of each Sextigation.
On the flip side, Maths and Philosophy come in as the subject having the least sex, with an average number of 0 partners post-matriculation. They are followed by Physics and Philosophy, History and Modern Languages (both with 0.5), and Computer Science and Philosophy (0.75).
Low body count does not necessarily mean an absence of sex, however (apart from for Maths and Philosophy students, sorry). 70.9% of respondents in a relationship of any kind reported having sex more than once a week with their partner. Quite impressively, 7.4% of respondents overcame the challenging Oxford work-life balance, recording that they have sex with their partner multiple times a day. Perhaps this is made easier by proximity: 32.1% of students admitted to having had a relationship with a member of their college.
Importantly, where mutual pleasure eludes us, in Oxford, self-love is always close at hand. When asked about masturbation, the majority of respondents said they masturbate at least 2-3 times a week, and nearly 3 in 4 do so at least once a week. Male respondents were the most frequent masturbaters, with over half saying they masturbate at least 4-5 times a week, whereas 8.6% of female respondents said that they never masturbate. Meanwhile, 1.2% of male respondents, and all non-binary respondents said that they masturbate at least once in a while. Whilst the most popular frequency of masturbation for both female and non-binary respondents was 2-3 times a week, male respondents preferred masturbating 4-5 times a week, with 1 in 4 saying that they do so at least every day.
A major development from last year’s survey is that the percentage of queer and questioning respondents has officially overtaken the percentage of heterosexual respondents, with the proportion of heterosexual respondents falling from 50.4% to 46%. The makeup of queer respondents is as follows: 32.8% bisexual, 14.5% gay, 1.8% pansexual. 4.9% don’t know or prefer not to say.
The average partner count for queer people since matriculation is higher than for straight people by one whole person (4.6 vs 3.5), whilst the total partner count for LGBTQ+ was 9.1, vs 5.4 for straight respondents, suggesting that LGBTQ+ beat straight respondents at Oxford and have more sexual experience before coming by an even greater margin. One respondent summed up the scene wistfully: “so much sex, so little time…”. Though one respondent said that the dating pool offered “too much choice tbf it’s like trying to shop at one of them massive tesco(s)”, others noted its limited size. One respondent wrote that “everyone has shagged everyone.” Another particularly effusive respondent said: “There is a tiny pool, and an even tinier selection of attractive / genuinely normal queer people (ie a lot are a bit too unhinged etc for me),” noting Oxford’s peculiar standards for sexual eligibility: “Being attractive and confident often is seen by others as being narcissistic or a bitch (in this city), so weirdly I don’t get nearly as much attention here as I do in other cities etc.” Others, however, enjoy the drama: “It’s messy, we love it”.
There is a marked difference in hookup culture for sexual orientations. Several gay men complained about being pressured into engaging in frequent casual sex, more so than other demographics, and while hookups may be easy to find, one respondent characterised the dating scene as “horrific”. “The stress of life here (and) the fact everyone’s always busy means that many are inclined towards casual sex/hookups”, contemplated one student.
Particularly those seeking female partners reported difficulty: “There are no lesbians here!!!”, said one such respondent. Several bisexual women commented on the difficulties of finding female partners, with one person replying that the experience is “upsetting in the way it sometimes feels like I’m contributing to the erasure of my own identity”.
But while some find “the Oxford gay scene is grim”, for others it has been an “incredible” chance to explore their sexuality in a city with a “much higher volume” than other places. “Shout out to tuesgays”, remarked one respondent.
Speaking of, the best place to find hookups in Oxford was Plush, receiving the highest percentage of votes at 24.8%. This checks out with the 6 people who admitted the weirdest place they’d had sex in Oxford was the Plush dancefloor/toilets (but only “briefly before being asked to leave…”). While Atik and Bridge offer similar opportunities at 17.7% and 14.8%, respectively, don’t bother trekking to Cowley if you’re looking for a fling: O2 Academy and Bully only received 2.2% of the total votes.
Casual sex is not overwhelmingly popular with Oxford students, with 42.3% of respondents reporting they had not had a one-night stand before. Even so, there was a large range in those who had experienced one-night stands, from the most significant portion having had a one-night stand 2-4 times (43.2%), to the 14 respondents who reported over 20. However, there remains the challenge of deciphering the intentions of those inviting you back, as highlighted by one respondent’s memorable encounter. This experience involved a wrestling fetish, donning leotards, and staying up until 3 am with the initial guy and his unexpected friend.
On hook-up culture in general, 54.6% of respondents found that there was no real pressure to participate in it, or at least the pressure was “not worse than anywhere else” and was “just the same as other uni culture”. “It’s easily accessible for those who want to find it but there’s not a pressure to participate”, summed up one respondent. As for why, one person commented “everyone’s doing too much work to fuck around”, while another supplied a different reason: “people are clapped”.
However, a significant minority of people who responded either with yes or maybe – 18.7% and 26.2% respectively – worried that there was an expectation to sleep with people they had got with in a club, with one respondent noting “you can’t really get with anyone in a club without being told you have to go back to their accommodation”. Similar pressures were sometimes present while dating, with one student commenting, “when I’ve gone on dates the expectation seems to be to hook up”.
A related aspect of Oxford’s sex life is slut shaming. A third of respondents – 33.5% – felt that there was a culture of shaming people for promiscuity. It seems that this is more nuanced than “actual slut SHAMING”. Instead, it underlies the lighthearted merriment of “things like sconcing on crewdates” – as explained by one respondent, “even though it is funny, getting sconced every couple of weeks for something that happened once can start to feel a bit like a form of slut shaming, especially for girls”.
29.8% of students answered that they do use dating apps to find sexual partners, with Hinge being the most popular dating app, beating Bumble, Tinder, and Grindr. Students seem to use dating apps for a variety of purposes, mostly with the intent of finding longer relationships: “most people… are looking to meet people and go on dates more than just hook up”, wrote one student. For the LGBTQ+ community, however, dating apps seemed more limited in providing opportunities to meet partners, who are “few and far between”, due to the limited user base.
Regarding the types of relationships Oxford students enter with each other, 51.1% of respondents answered that they had entered an ‘official’ relationship while at Oxford. As some students noted, the culture in Oxford seems to be “way more focused on serious relationships or at least fwb”. While universities, in general, can provide the meet-cute needed for any good love story, Oxford is apparently the 2nd university in the UK where you are most likely to marry the partner you meet here, at 21%, aligning with the 36% of respondents who have had an official relationship of a year or more. Situationships followed, with 40.5% of participants having not put a label on it, and one student creating their own category of relationship: “‘Pure delusion :D”.
When it comes to sex positions, missionary – including related sex positions, such as “eagle” or “legs in the air” – was most popular. Of the 268 people who gave a preference, 33.2% said that missionary was their preferred position, with cowgirl coming in second at 24.2%. Notably, missionary was the most popular position for both female and male respondents, whilst cowgirl took the prize for non-binary respondents. However, whereas 17.7% more male respondents opted for missionary than the second most popular position, cowgirl, for female respondents, missionary, doggystyle and cowgirl all came within 4.8% of one another. Although roughly the same proportion of female respondents as male ones nominated cowgirl as their sex position of choice, 4.9% more female respondents than male respondents said that doggystyle was their favourite, and around 7.4% of both female and male respondents chose speed bumping. Oral sex was nominated overwhelmingly by non-binary respondents, with no female respondents saying that it was their go-to.
For some respondents, it was not the position, but satisfaction that counts above all. Viewing the question in a more abstract sense, one respondent wrote that their preferred position was “seeing her happy.” Another respondent was either flustered by the subject matter or spoilt for choice, writing: “I don’t know 😔😔.” Others were fans of some more niche positions including “seashell,” “the big dipper,” and – the ominously titled – “French delivery.” Nevertheless, nearly 80% of those who gave a preference said that either doggystyle, cowgirl or missionary were their favourites. Evidently, when it comes to go-to sex positions, in Oxford, you can’t go wrong with a classic.
There has been little change in relation to the safety of sex in Oxford since last year. This year, 59.2% of respondents said they ensure that some kind of contraception is used when having sex, whilst 26.3% said that they do not, up a perhaps concerning, but marginal 2.5% on last year’s survey. Much like last year, condoms were the most used form of contraception, used by 51.6% of people who use contraception. As regards the differing attitudes towards contraception of female, male and non-binary respondents, the differences were relatively minor. Whilst female respondents were most likely to ensure contraception was used – 71.1% of female respondents who gave a definitive answer said that they did so – non-binary respondents were the least likely to, with only 63.2% answering positively.
Besides being “too! vanilla!!!”, we wondered whether there were any other peculiarities that make sex at Oxford stand out. Some respondents noted with great fondness some classic aspects of the Oxfordian sex life. One in particular recalled “leaving someone at 5am to go to rowing practice,” whilst another reminisced about “being asked for my LinkedIn after a hook-up,” a testament to how truly no kind of relationship is sacred for Oxford hacks and careerists. Another respondent ruminated that “less neeks would vastly improve the quality of sex at Oxford.”
The city of dreaming spires is naturally home to some more unconventional locations where one might “get jiggy with it.” Particularly astounding was one respondent, among the 43.1% of respondents who confessed to having had sex in a public place, who “had sex in the Bridge of Sighs,” noting that “it is really difficult to have sex in the Bridge of Sighs but I managed it.” Other notable sex spots included: the Radcam, the Sackler, apparently everywhere in New College, Exeter College chapel, the alleyway between the two Spoons pubs, St John’s boat house, Green Templeton’s garden, and “… Brasenose.”
Some students noted their frustration with Oxford sex life. One respondent took issue with its stiffness in particular, writing that “everyone needs to loosen up.” Another wrote regretfully, “I wish I hadn’t had sex here. I’d have been happier waiting until marriage.” Others noted troubles in finding sexual or romantic partners around Oxford. Besides expressions of disappointment such as “How do people ever enter relationships with each other?”, another respondent spoke to a feeling of alienation arising from Oxford’s clubbing culture: “It’s just hard to get into if you don’t go clubbing, I think. Lots of people just want one-night stands while they’re drunk, not friends-with-benefits arrangements or, God forbid, proper relationships.” Finally, while this sex survey sheds insights into the varied and diverse sex life of the Oxford student, one student remarked that they wished “people were more open about their sex lives, not because I want to be creepy or anything, but just because it would help me rationalise it all better (and hopefully let me know I’m not alone in my inexperience)”.
On a more serious note, a number of respondents expressed concern at the normalisation of sexual assault within Oxford: “the prevalence of sexual assault and rape here is absolutely insane. Even worse is the acceptance from the rest of the cohort, and apparent mission to protect their reputations once they find out”. Others noted the lack of education around consent, and that “some people arrive here and have NO boundaries”. But the problems seem to start earlier than Oxford – with one student attributing such attitudes to the culture in same-sex private schools, a reminder of theEveryone’s Invited initiative, which began in 2020 to eradicate rape culture, and allowing survivors to share stories. Within Oxford too, then, it seems there needs to be a change in countering such normalised practices, to “hold people accountable”.
Concerned with the betterment of the sexual experience in Oxford, a number of students proffered insightful words of wisdom and advice. “Don’t f**k your ex or lend them £2,000,” wrote one student, whilst another suggested that the “walls ought to be thicker because I can hear you f***rs screaming.” Another took issue with the stiffness of Oxford sex life, saying “everyone needs to loosen up.” Whilst “Oxford has really hot women,” another respondent noted that “Oxford men are very disappointing (sorry).” One respondent suggested that a solution to this problem would be to “branch out from Uni of Oxford men” to other male residents, writing that “Oxford Brookes were better, but better still were the flight school and people who work around the city.” Good to know. Despite the generally sex-positive attitudes students expressed, we found that there sometimes is a lack of conversation talking about sex at Oxford. While some students celebrated their friends as providing a “supportive”, “open, respectful”, space, others noted that “everyone seems to be having it [sex] but nobody ever talks about it”. Perhaps then the answer is openness, normalising conversations to understand that there is no singular sexual experience which defines the average Oxford student. As the wise Salt-N-Pepa once proclaimed: “Let’s talk about sex”.
This week’s article will focus on the two people who are, in all likelihood, the candidates for Prime Minister in the next British elections. Just a quick reminder, elections in the United Kingdom generally happen every five years, unless parliament is dissolved earlier, which is not unusual. Every citizen votes for a member of Parliament who will represent their constituency at the House of Commons and the party that wins the most constituencies (out of 650), will try and form the government. The winning party’s leader – today, realistically, either Rishi Sunak (Conservative) or Keir Starmer (Labour) – will become the next Prime Minister. But, who are these people? In this article you will get to know the version they like, and that they don’t.
First, the Prime Minister: Rishi Sunak. Sunak tells us he was born to ordinary immigrants to the UK and grew up in a middle-class family; his mother owned a “tiny” pharmacy, and his father was an NHS family GP. His parents sacrificed a lot so he could attend a public school and the University of Oxford (PPE at Lincoln), and he then studied for an MBA at Stanford. His professional career was in finance, he co-founded an international investment firm and succeeded thanks to his hard work. Sunak is married and has two daughters.
However, what does this story miss? According to The Times: “Sunak is not an immigrant success story, but an English public school and Oxbridge success story. He is the product of an upper-middle-class education.” Furthermore, it is important to know that although Sunak portrays himself and his family as average, upper-middle-class, his wife is the daughter of one of India’s richest men and is worth around £300 million. Tthe family has a mansion in Northallerton, a house and an apartment in Kensington, London, and an apartment in California. In politics, he is regarded as a non-ideological liberal who made smart tactical decisions in supporting Johnson and had a very quick rise to power.
Now, to Sir Keir Starmer. Starmer, married with children, tells us he grew up in a working-class family, his father worked in a factory, and his mother was a nurse for the NHS. Also, he was the first in his family to attend university and studied law at Leeds. After graduating he became a lawyer taking many pro-bono cases, including against big corporations, later worked in North Ireland, and then became the Director of Public Prosecutions. In 2014 he received a knighthood for services to criminal justice.
But, what doesn’t he tell us? Quite importantly, his opinions are not clear. Starmer has been known to politically flip-flop and adjust his message to the crowd and his needs. As a young Oxford graduate student, he became involved in Socialist causes, and seemingly maintained many of those opinions. However, he has also moved the Labour Party in a more centrist direction and often supports centrist ideas. Additionally, he is perceived as a boring, corporate person by voters, and not political enough by the political class.
Finally, it is important to note that there are other parties in Britain, but only the big parties are true contenders for the premiership – meaning one of these two will, unless there is a leadership change, become PM.
Joe Biden is in electoral danger. That is the verdict from numerous recent polls which show a reinvigorated Trump in the ascendancy. Unfortunately, Biden’s efforts to come out fighting in Thursday’s address to the media did little to assuage fears of his ageing memory and unsuitability to remain as President.
Biden successfully managed the media for about 10 minutes, forcefully pushing back on many attempts to attack the quality of his memory, a worry stoked recently by Special Counsel Robert Hur’s comments that presented Biden as ‘an elderly man with a poor memory.’ Even though Hur recommended against charges for faults in Biden’s retention of classified papers and his remarks on Biden’s abilities were attacked as a ‘partisan hit job’, worries abound in the Democrat camp of public perception of Biden’s cognitive capacities. Enter the fateful final question.
Having successfully dodged the worst pitfalls of Fox News’s interrogations about his age, Biden returned to the lectern to answer a final question on Gaza, in the process managing to assert that Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was the President of Mexico. Therein lies the rub, for al-Sisi is in fact not the President of Mexico, but the President of Egypt. What memory problems?
Add into the mix Biden’s bizarre allusions to meetings with the (long deceased) François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl, and Trump’s charges of ‘Sleepy Joe’ may hit home where they did not fully in 2020. Worse still for the Democrats, Trump’s multiple criminal charges do not seem to have a substantial effect on his polling: always pitched as the anti-Establishment candidate, throwing everything that the Establishment has at Trump only plays into his narrative.
Winning the Nevada primary with little opposition, it seems near certain that Biden will take the Democratic presidential nomination. Save for a sudden surge in support for Nikki Haley, who lost to ‘none of these candidates’ in the equivalent Republican primary, Trump will run for the Republicans. There are therefore two routes to avoiding the disaster that would be a second Trump term: his disqualification or a Biden victory.
A federal court ruled on the 6th of February that as Trump was no longer President, he was not immune from charges related to an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results. However, this carries the unfortunate implication, and reminder, that if Trump were President again, he would effectively have few obstacles in his path to taking America further down the road of government by social media diktat.
The damage that Trump could wreak on America and the world with a second term cannot be understated. With a campaign theme of ‘retribution’, he has talked up using the military to crush protests in Democrat-leaning cities, abolishing the ‘Marxist’ Department for Education, and repealing Obamacare. The danger extends to the existential: with an energy policy mantra of ‘Drill, drill, drill’ and a promise to leave the Paris Accords, a second Trump term would kill stone-dead any prospect of limiting global warming below 2 degrees, and perhaps also 2.5. The world has, after all, already hit 1.5 degrees warming.
Trump’s foreign policy could be yet more calamitous for European security and global peace. Taking ‘America First’ to new levels, the fate of NATO and Ukraine would hang in the balance as Trump develops ever closer ties with fellow populist strongmen like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Viktor Orbán. His economic policies could push the world towards a fully blown trade war. The world cannot afford a second term of Donald Trump. If it gets one, it cannot be sure that it will not then see a third, and a fourth – once American democracy has been hollowed out by further authoritarian vandalism of political institutions.
Biden’s 2024 campaign policies are predicted to involve capping costs on prescription medicines, attempting to ban assault rifles, and restoring a nationwide right to abortion. While the success of many of these programmes is contingent on Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, the contrast between Biden’s platform and Trump’s could not be starker. Even if Biden cannot implement all of his policy agenda, he has his continued respect for America’s allies and his commitment to at least not destroying the (albeit insufficient) global coordination on tackling climate change. And he is the Democrats’ only option now.
With a Supreme Court packed with Trump nominees which casted doubt on Colorado’s decision to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot, disqualification from election seems unlikely. The Democrats should not count on it, and as discussed, such a narrative only plays into Trump’s hands. Accusations regarding Biden’s age often forget that Trump would turn 80 during a second term. He is also at least as foggy, having appeared to suggest that he beat Barack Obama to win the 2016 election. Some scientists have also characterised both as ‘super-agers’ and give Biden a higher chance of surviving than Trump. Like in 2020, Biden is now the Democrats’ only option. Octogenarian presidents are not ideal, but American democracy, world peace, and a fighting chance at averting the worst of the climate emergency may well be at stake. For all the talk of memory, that is the one thing that Americans should remember.
With my ramshackle GCSE/Wikipedia knowledge of 70’s American politics, I feared that I would struggle to follow this student adaptation of David Morgan’s 2006 work about the 1977 Nixon interviews – an unexpected choice for a student play, perhaps. Luckily, my fears were misplaced. Elspeth Rogers’ production sweeps its audience along in a tale of power, popularity, and politics. Frost/Nixon is about much more than a television exchange between ambitious media man David Frost and a President looking to come back from the wilderness. It tells the story of men obsessed with fame and driven by the attention of others.
The play is jointly narrated by Jim Reston (Georgina Cooper), who joins Frost’s crack team to strategize on interviews that hope to nail Nixon as a criminal once and for all, and Jack Brennan (Philip Nedelev), the ex-President’s Chief of Staff who is loyal to his core. Thanks to Rei Tracks’s excellent lighting design, Reston and Brennan ‘step out’ of the narrative to provide a retrospective on events through clever spotlighting and precisely timed cues.
Rohan Joshi is a star turn as President Nixon. His wounded gait, booming American accent, and measured pace of delivery kept the audience rapt. If Joshi was aware of the pressure of taking a difficult lead role as a fresher, it did not show. One scene worthy of particular praise is a telephone conversation between Nixon and Frost in which Joshi expertly portrays Nixon’s angst as it reaches a crescendo, lamenting his distance from the dizzying heights of Washington while effectively in exile on the Western Seaboard. Another is the final interview, specifically on Watergate, in which Frost finally strikes home with the revelation of new evidence and Nixon is shown to be a sweating, farcical demagogue, desperately asserting that ‘well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal’.
Sol Woodroffe, in the role of Frost, delivers a powerful performance as an early television news ‘star’ at a time where the power of such globalised popular culture was only just emerging. His recklessness is brought to the fore when Frost contritely asks why nobody tried to stop him after the failure of the first three interviews to get anything interesting or compromising (and ideally both) out of Nixon. The venture is especially risky as Frost has paid Nixon $600,000 for the privilege of interviewing him, a figure negotiated up by Nixon’s greedy and seedy talent agent, ‘Swifty’ Lazar (Hasina Ibrahim).
After all, with the confidence to fund much of the interviews himself given a lack of backing from big networks and sponsors, Frost is a man driven by vainglorious, vaulting ambition which chafes against the other characters in a frequently humorous way. Frost spends a cringe comedic transatlantic flight with co-passenger Caroline Cushing (Freya Thomas) and his snazzy brown Italian shoes produce many a laugh in themselves as a source of much fascination from Nixon and others.
John Birt (Blaze Pierzchniak) and Bob Zelnick (again Hasina Ibrahim) round out the cast of characters and Frost’s team. Each have their own backstories that only serve to raise the stakes surrounding the outcome of the interviews. The plot is infused with a note of nervous desperation that makes the moments of comic relief – including Nedelev’s (improvised) comment that Nixon ‘got that dawg in him’ – an enjoyable counterweight to the dynamic tension that Joshi and Woodroffe bring so expertly to the fore.
Particularly striking is the play’s musings on the unfortunate blurring between media, stardom, and politics. Jim Reston, a man desperate to publicize Nixon’s crimes for the good of the American people, closes the show with the comment that at one of Frost’s (in)famous parties, filled with star figures from government and media alike, it was difficult to know where the showbiz ended and the politics began. In today’s Trumpian era of politics as entertainment, where even on these shores it is seemingly normal to witness Rishi Sunak take a bet with Piers Morgan, the play’s message – teased out skilfully by this student cast – continues to bear hugely on our perception of public life today.
Corpus Christi College voted overwhelmingly, with no vote against and one abstention, to disaffiliate from the Student Union at a JCR meeting on 18 February, citing the SU’s “controversies and ineffectiveness.” The disaffiliation will go into effect at Corpus’s pizza party with the SU-funded pizza they recently won.
The motion notes that “JCR presidents and JCR committees often do the work that the SU proposes to do for them” and believes that disaffiliation “will have no palpable or material impact on any of [JCR members’] lives.”
When asked about whether Corpus JCR expects any changes or additional duties, President Elias Laurent told Cherwell: “The JCR isn’t expecting any difference in its role as a result of disaffiliation.”
The motion also notes that “The SU is often marred by controversy, some of these recent instances including the current President being suspended under investigation whilst retaining a salary, recent electoral malpractice allegations, and the Vice-Chancellor’s belief that the SU does not sufficiently represent common rooms.” The opening line of the motion refers to this year’s SU elections as “a great travesty called ‘democracy’ [sarcastic]” but clarifies that disaffiliation is not a response to any of these specific controversies, but “the culmination of SU failings.”
Co-proposers Freddie Scowen and Grace Lawrence told Cherwell: “We are both in our fourth year at Oxford and have held executive positions within the JCR in the past. This motion reflects long standing apathy towards the SU, and we really hope that the SU considers why multiple common rooms have disaffiliated or are currently considering disaffiliation. Cynically, we do not believe anything will change and thus encourage other common rooms to also consider disaffiliation motions.”
Corpus’s affiliation follows the precedence of Christ Church College’s 2021 disaffiliation – known as “ChChexit” – and Brasenose College’s 2023 disaffiliation. The motion also claims that the issue of disaffiliation will soon be proposed to University College JCR “predominantly on the basis of alleged malpractice in the 2024 election.”
Chair of SU Student Council and former Corpus JCR president Isaac Chase-Rahman told Cherwell: “The SU has been a litany of failures over the past few years and things desperately need to change. Anti-SU sentiments have run deep in Corpus, with the JCR disaffiliating in 2018. I’m glad to see Corpus voices being heard and acknowledged.” In 2019, Corpus JCR voted to reaffiliate.
The motion states: “Disaffiliation is perhaps one of the strongest routes by which the JCR can express our desire for the SU to be run better, short of electing the candidate we believed could affect real change.” Corpus JCR previously endorsed Chase-Rahman for SU President.
After this week’s disaffiliation, all Corpus students will remain individual members of the SU – the motion clarifies “for those who are worried about such things” – and retain SU welfare provisions such as sexual health products. Per Corpus JCR SU delegate’s standing orders, the issue of reaffiliation will be raised every Trinity Term.
Corpus JCR SU delegate Samuel Cohen told Cherwell: “I didn’t feel that there was any substantial case to be made against it. The unanimity of support for the motion to leave goes to prove the complete apathy most people have when they think of the SU. Even as someone who was more engaged than most through the Student Council, it never felt inspiring or particularly important to have the college’s input there. I appreciate the work of many of the people at the SU and the services that it can provide but it’s obvious it feels completely detached from almost everyone I’ve spoken to.”
During the earlier SU elections, Corpus clashed with All Souls College over a £300 pizza prize promised by the SU to the college with the highest turnout. When All Souls ranked highest due to its small student body of merely eight members, an anonymous Corpus JCR member encouraged voting, posting “go and vote or eight sweaty nerds will steal all our pizza.” Corpus came in second, and SU awarded both colleges with a £300 voucher each.
Noting this, Corpus’s disaffiliation will be “effective as of when the first bite of SU-funded pizza is consumed at our All Souls pizza party” according to the motion.
The motion wishes to “signal that Corpus JCR is a small and friendly island that should not be underestimated as a voting bloc and member of the SU… Above all, it will be funny if we disaffiliate and keep with our current reputation in the student press for causing havoc – think of the article someone can write in the Cherwell.”
At its third meeting of Hilary term, the Jesus College JCR committee passed the motion to recommend that the College abolish free second hall for JCR committee members.
Jesus College’s current policy is that JCR committee members have weekly access to formals, or second hall. In meetings with the committee, the Department for Accomodation, Catering and Conferences (DACC) had indicated that this policy was a contributing factor toward high food prices in hall.
A formal hall for a member of Jesus College not in the JCR is £8.20, and £13.65 for guests. Comparatively St John’s College offers a formal hall dinner to guests for £4.98.
Jesus JCR Vice-President Sam Freeman put forth the notion to be debated at the Jesus JCR meeting. He stated in his motion: “Subsidising some members of college to eat for free whilst others struggle with ever rising costs is unacceptable. The costs of running hall should be more transparent to facilitate greater accountability to the student body.”
The debate on this motion was extensive. It was countered by claims that there would be no immediate reduction of present hall food cost, meaning the removal of eligibility for free formals could be without impact.
Further debate took issue with the reduced recognition of the JCR committee members, though this was countered by a general keenness to avoid an atmosphere of reward in the JCR for those working on the committee.
There was further concern that removing this policy would weaken the negotiating position the JCR had with the college over reducing costs. Sam Freeman stated during the meeting, however, that the motion would serve as a demonstration of the committee’s dedication: “Here’s something from us, now something big from you.”
Before the motion went to vote it was altered from an immediate abolition of free formals to a proposal that the removal of free formals be discussed with the Director of the DACC team. After further debate the motion went to voting and was passed.
Freeman told Cherwell: “I’m very pleased the motion has passed and has now been sent forth to the director for accommodation, catering and conferences (DACC). For too long Jesus students have had to put up with unacceptably high hall prices and we hope this can be a start point for negotiations to decrease them across the board as well as sending a message to college management about just how seriously the JCR committee are taking this issue.”
Jesus has the fifth-highest endowment per student of undergraduate colleges. The College is implementing a trial re-balance in prices between first and second hall next term, with first hall prices decreasing as formal prices increase.
Athletes from St John’s College, Cambridge were punished with over 130 hours of community service for their bad behaviour at a sports day swap at Balliol College last term. The behaviour involved verbal abuse, as well as urinating and spilling beer indoors.
The College Dean, Dr Nick Friedman, awarded the St John’s men’s football team and croquet team over 130 hours of community service, to complete jointly.
The students were recorded on Oxford’s CCTV causing destruction to the Balliol College Recreation Ground, off of Jowett Walk. They also reportedly left broken glass, mud, and urine in the changing rooms and trashed the College bar. Friedman was told that St John’s students had been asked to pick up rubbish left on the pitches but failed to do so.
One Oxford student said: “College sports swaps aren’t about the sport as much as socialising at the other place,” emphasising that students often sign up to play sports they don’t have experience in just to participate in the trip.
Friedman emailed the captains of the men’s football and croquet captains to request that they “attend an urgent meeting with the Dean” in January and told them that he had received a list of allegations made by Balliol including the above.
The email further stated that “The security staff reported [St John’s] students drinking beer through funnels, and then sliding on beer spilt to the floor.”
After the community service was awarded, the Balliol master said the following: “The Balliol/St John’s Sports Day is [an] annual event which all the students involved enjoy. We are grateful to St John’s for resolving an issue from a recent event and relationships with St John’s, our sister College in Cambridge, remain cordial.”
Oxford colleges have also received complaints about student behaviour after sports day swaps to Cambridge. One source told Cherwell that, in their experience, sports days have included excessive drinking and urinating on statues at Cambridge colleges.
Another Oxford student said the behaviour from Cambridge did not surprise him. “It’s really classic Cambridge, isn’t it.”
The Student Union (SU) has voted in favour of the “Divestment” motion that mandates SU Sabbatical Officers to lobby Oxford University and its colleges to sever all ties with any company or organisation meeting certain criteria – including those “which a reasonable person would believe to be involved in unethical conduct.” The SU will push Oxford to stop investing in, renting space to, accepting funding from, and collaborating through career services with such entities.
The motion – passed with 21 in favour, 6 against, and 3 abstaining – was proposed by the newly elected NUS Delegate Luca Di Bona at a 30 January Council meeting. It names the UK’s Armed Forces, Police Force, Intelligence Agencies, Home Office, and the Department for Work and Pensions as off-limits. Other criteria specify entities that are proven to take away the rights of the individual, manufacture torture equipment, or derive more than 10% of their profits from armaments, fossil fuels, et cetera.
This follows last term’s SU policy “Reform to the Ethical Code of Practice for Commercial Activities,” which restricts the companies and organisations the SU may have ties with. The SU now believes, according to the motion, that the University should also end its relationship with “organisations that the SU will not work with on ethical grounds.”
At the meeting, Di Bona was asked whether the motion applies to companies that give scholarships to students, to which they responded: “The University’s choice to work with these [arms] companies to get scholarships may reduce the time and effort it spends to achieve other scholarships from ethical backgrounds.”
A voting member of the SU who voted against the motion told Cherwell: “It was raised in the Student Council meeting that the divestment motion was extremely broad, to the extent that it seemed imprecise in its application. Divestment only represents a proper censuring of unethical business practice where it is targeted, so that businesses know why they are being divested.”
A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “All Oxford University research is academically driven, with the ultimate aim of enhancing openly available scholarship and knowledge. Donors have no influence over how Oxford academics carry out their research, and major donors are reviewed and approved by the University’s Committee to Review Donations and Research Funding, which is a robust, independent system taking legal, ethical and reputational issues into consideration before gifts are accepted.
“Much of our overseas collaborative research addresses global challenges such as climate change and major health problems where international involvement is important in delivering globally relevant solutions.”
Di Bona told Cherwell that the divestment motion has precedence in Cardiff University’s 2009 decision to cut financial ties with arms companies. They said: “I’m aware that’s going to be a long process, and it’s an iterative process, so what we’ll see is strong negotiations between the SU and University that give us small wins.”
Tesla is opening its first Oxfordshire site in a technology park located south of Bicester. Albion Land’s Catalyst Park in Bicester is designed for advanced manufacturing sectors and technology, and will house Tesla’s newest outlet. With 40 stores in the UK, the Tesla store closest to Oxford up until now was in Reading.
Tesla has already been leasing the 24,000 sq ft location, alongside a unit that will be handed over to an unnamed design and manufacturing company. The new occupants will join Evolito, an aerospace company, and Yasa, a manufacturer of electric motors owned by Mercedes Benz, at the site. There is one more building currently available and an additional two under construction, comprising a further 110,000 sq ft that will be ready to let in summer 2024.
The business complex aims to help reduce commuting out of Bicester due to its proximity to housing, transport links and infrastructure. This would support Bicester’s population growth plans, with 10,000 new homes planned within 12 years and an increase in population from 32,000 to 50,000+ by 2031. Future planned infrastructure works are already in place to ensure the transport network will keep pace with this growth.
Tesla had previously been expanding in Oxford, with its superchargers contributing to the opening of the Redbridge Park and Ride electric vehicle charging hub in 2022, which was claimed to be the “most powerful” in Europe. It remains one of the few supercharger stations in Oxfordshire, with 12 Tesla chargers at 250kW restricted to Tesla owners. Although the manufacture and operation of Supercharger stations do have a carbon footprint, the reduction in emissions from electric vehicles will help achieve Oxford’s proposals to move to zero emission travel in the city.
Oxford is set to become the first UK city to introduce a zero-emission zone, an area in which only zero emission vehicles can be used without incurring a charge. The objective is to improve air quality, cut carbon emissions, and encourage the use of public transport, including Redbridge or Bicester Park and Ride. The scheme will only cover a handful of streets in the city centre, but the Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council hope to grow the zone over the coming years.
