As part of the Chavasse Family Lectures commemorating the St Peter’s College founders and their family’s role in the First World War, the college have started a lecture series on everything from faith in the trenches to medical treatment at the time. I was lucky enough to sit down with author, journalist, broadcaster and biting TV host Jeremy Paxman after his talk, ‘World War I: The War to End War’ to discuss the “war to end all wars” and how it relates to modern Britain.

Having skim-read a couple of books about the First World War for A-level History, I felt comfortable telling my famously knowledgeable guest that I quite liked World War 1 as a topic in history.

“You probably know more about it than I do”, he shot back, a shocking statement from a man who laughs at students who don’t know the complete works of Czech composer Antonin Dvorak.

The formality of the interview decreases quickly after this. Of course, Paxman is nothing like the man we see grilling politicians or mocking university students. He’s a much more mild-mannered, calm version of this, complete with a subtle version of that biting wit.

“Anyone can write a book”, he tells me, shrugging off any assumption of his knowledge on the war before launching in on the massive difference between the Britain of today and the Britain of 1914.

“I don’t think there are many parallels—in fact, virtually no parallels at all—between pre-World War I Britain and Britain today” he said. “It seems to me that the war just about made modern Britain, in that it was unimaginable after [the war] that you would have such a restricted franchise, that you would ever again prevent women from working and voting—albeit there were many years before full parity between genders. It seems to me that it changed medicine, science, the forces how politics ran: just about everything.”

None of my A-level history books had prepared me for this moment, and I was stuck offering odd, meaningless statements just to keep the conversation moving: “I had no idea”.

My lack of knowledge didn’t matter; he was riffing, now. “Yes, it’s true! It’s entirely different! In Edwardian Britain, you didn’t even need a passport. Most people didn’t even travel, though, so there was no real requirement. The contract, it seems, between government and people changed completely. Once conscription was introduced, the nature of the relationship changed hugely. It was the old power circumstances that were intolerable.”

At the same time, none of this really stood the test of time.

“People say there are many accounts of classes being broken down. I mean, on the Western Front, where everyone is working together in a hole in the ground, it’s very hard to maintain illusions about ‘them and us’. People say that, but in the end”, he pauses, choosing his words carefully. “I don’t know that ‘the shared endeavor completely broke down the illusions each had about the other’ is a merited story. It’s a difficult judgement call.”

The shared illusions of them-and-us, though, isn’t simply about rich and poor. It extends to the more than 1.5 million troops recruited from British colonies like India. As Paxman has most recently written on the ways imperialism changed Britain, I was interested to know his opinions of colonial troops fighting in the First World War. Were they erased from popular memory? Why did we ignore the contributions of so many to the war?

“I would be surprised if that was still true”, he said of whitewashing the history of colonial contribution. “Now, I don’t know the syllabus, but these things hugely changed the country, a country completely different to where we live now. I don’t find it surprising that history syllabuses lag far behind popular assumption or are doctrinally different. I would be surprised if it were the case that the contribution of colonial groups and civilians had been erased. If so, it’s a mistake.”

Changing course, we began to discuss how World War I, often called the war to end all wars, had not fulfilled that role, seeing an even larger conflict just a couple decades later.

“Well the Germans had believed there was an unjust peace put on them, and the mechanisms that were set up to try to establish new ways of settling disputes, while tremendous energy was put behind them, were deeply flawed institutions.

“The UN has struggled to prevent issues—consider, for example, the war in Syria. I do think that politics really matter. If we can’t solve our problems by talking, then the obvious recourse is fighting, which, as the First World War demonstrates, doesn’t solve anything.”

Interestingly, the Second World War occurred even after the sheer size and scope of the First had surprised and terrified its participants.

“Kitchener thought it would last three years. This was an enormous conflict, he said, but most people seem to have seen it as akin to other European wars, like the Franco-Prussian. No one ever assumed anything like the dimensions of the World War I”, Paxman said. “Everyone was affected by it: there was rationing; everyone had men they know who were serving; there were women who were serving; children were victims.”

The very pervasiveness that kept the war effort going in 1915, to Paxman, is also the reason it couldn’t happen now.

“We wouldn’t be able to put up with anything that resulted in the mass involuntary enterprise”, he said. “I just can’t see it happening today. That’s the source of my anxiety: we’re an atomised and hedonistic society, accustomed to serving itself.”

Paxman’s comments that the latest generation are “materialistic, self-obsessed, hedonistic” have attracted significant reaction and controversy. He has maintained that the current generation would never engage in a conflict like the First World War. His idea is that the notion of ‘For King and Country’ is long dead and has been replaced by a society exhibited by a lack of any sense of public duty.

Speaking at the Emirates Airline Festival in Dubai in 2014, Paxman argued that there are fundamental misunderstandings about how people reacted to First World War. World-famous poetry, such as that by Siefried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen, was “part of the problem” because they fostered a narrative of armchair generals and wasted lives.

Accompanying his book, Paxman presented Britain’s Great War, the flagship documentary series for the BBC’s WW1 Centenary in 2014. Although reviews were generally favourable, there was furious backlash for naming those who refused to fight as “cranks”.

On October 1st, Paxman released his new memoirs, A Life in Questions, which charts his life from failing Maths O-level at school to his signature status presenting Newsnight, interviewing almost every major public figure in the UK.

Earlier this month, Jeremy Paxman revealed that University Challenge edited out scenes when students can’t answer questions. Speaking at the Henley Literary Festival about his autobiography, Jeremy Paxman said, “I’ll let you into a secret [about how] University Challenge is recorded.”

“If we get a run of questions, it doesn’t happen very often, say one show in seven or eight or 10 or something, you might get a run of unanswered starter questions, they all get edited out.” Paxman, who studied at St Catherine’s College, Cambridge became a fellow by special election of St Edmund Hall, Oxford and currently lives in Oxfordshire.

One of Theresa May’s ideas has been to lift the ban on grammar schools and give existing schools the chance to become selective. The media and even the currently disunited Labour Party have all formed a consensus of opposition against May’s proposals, which would potentially see new grammar schools open for the first time in England and Wales since the 1970s.

Alongside this are the ever-present and extremely valid concerns about access to higher education. With the first universities coming forward saying they will incrementally increase tuition fees from the academic year 2017/18, and the restructuring of maintenance grants received by students from low-income families into loans, there is a lot to be worried about in terms of ensuring people from all socioeconomic backgrounds are given the opportunities they deserve to succeed academically and to boost their career prospects.

However, I believe bringing back the grammar school could be a good thing for our education system as a whole, or at least are a good starting point for a fundamental rethink of the purpose of education in this country. They could provide a more tailored system that works for pupils rather than forcing them to work in an environment in which they are bored and unhappy. They could also enable children and teenagers who are academically-minded to learn in an environment conducive to the kind of critical thinking required at university level.

Yet, I completely understand there are risks with this kind of approach. Some of the concerns aired by opponents of May’s proposals include writing off children at the age of 11 based on a single test—an incorrect assumption as the proposals give the opportunity for those who fail one year to take the test again the next year, ensuring no-one gets left behind.

Others argue that grammars are not socially inclusive and never have been. Although many of the existing grammar schools do suffer from problems when it comes to diversity of socioeconomic backgrounds, this can be explained by factors including their location, many in traditionally middle class areas, and middle class parents paying for 11+ tuition for their children.

Onto social exclusivity, there is a point to be made in that grammar schools can easily be manipulated by families who have the money to pay for tuition for their children to pass the entrance exam—at whatever age that might be. In the case of my grammar school, 35 of the Year 7 entrants in one year came from an independent preparatory school, the largest percentage of the year group. The second highest number of entrants came from a state primary school, approximately 22 of the year group. Overall, the issue here is clear. This is one aspect of the grammar school that doesn’t put it in a favourable light.

It also has something to do with the metrics by which deprivation is measured in terms of education. I have reservations about measuring the percentage of pupils from deprived backgrounds in schools based on whether or not they are eligible for Free Schools Meals, which excludes those whose parents are in low-paid work and receiving Universal Credit for instance. Most of the statistics about socioeconomic background in grammars use this metric, which isn’t to say that it doesn’t have a point, but perhaps doesn’t tell the full story. Regardless, this is, in my opinion, the most important argument against reintroducing grammar schools.

I only attended a grammar school in Years 12 and 13. I didn’t take the 11+ exam because, frankly, I would never have passed it. I knew this at the age of 11, and coming from a single-parent family on tax credits my mum certainly didn’t have the funds to afford tuition. I attended a local secondary modern school and enjoyed my time there. The pastoral support and sense of community at the secondary modern was, in my view, far superior to that of the grammar school. But that didn’t stop me from noticing how some in my year and in others years were simply not being challenged enough across the board in terms of our academic ability. Yes, there were some fantastic teachers who really did challenge us to the full, but a majority were more willing (again, understandably) to get the class one mark above a C grade at GCSE than encouraging us to enjoy and think critically about the subject in question. In my opinion, that’s a dereliction of a school’s duty, which should be to raise the attainment of all. The current system, however, means that all students are taught the same, very little is tailored to their interests, and many, but by no means all, come out of the system feeling disenfranchised and worthless.

Many people need to realise that not everyone is academically-minded, and understand that this is no bad thing. You might be a master essay writer in History, but someone else might be a technological whizz-kid who excels at Graphic Design. The introduction of a system whereby more academic pupils could attend schools that were designed as academic schools, and where more vocational pupils could attend schools designed to be more vocational, might lead to a major culture shift in Britain about the value of vocational skills and might improve issues like youth unemployment in the country.

Finally, to my point about segregation in education. Many seem to leap to attack the prospect of grammar schools returning, saying it brings about unfairness in our education system and leads to a sense of failure that stifles aspiration. But what of private schools? These are institutions which are accessible only to those whose parents have enough money to pay the fees. It is a known fact that most private schools, especially public schools, are better equipped to give children the education they need to succeed in life. Many politicians, actors, academics and the like have been educated at these schools, and many of these very people berate state schools (therefore, schools with no fees) that want to give academically-minded pupils from all backgrounds the same environment and facilities they had in their youth

Overall, if they are to be brought back, grammar schools will need reform. They cannot be the same beast they were in the mid-20th century. But I truly think they can be successful. They can also ensure that people from social backgrounds can receive the preparation needed to go to top higher education institutions. It could even spur on development in vocational subjects at top universities, allowing people who under the present system would not consider university at all the chance to develop practical skills at a higher education level. We may rightly be cautious about what the current Government has planned for the reintroduction of grammar schools, but if they’re done well then I think a shake-up of a system that is far from perfect would be no bad thing.

Trump is almost certainly going to lose this election. Clinton should allow herself a moment of celebration for defeating Trump, a feat the Republicans failed to accomplish in the primaries.

Her real battle, though, has only just begun. Now she has to persuade people she will be a strong president. Thanks to the terrifying prospect of a Trump presidency, Hillary has had little scrutiny of her own policies and ideas. How can you criticise someone for being a Neo-Con when their opponent has boasted about sexual assaulting women, uses the phrase ‘bad hombres’, has said the election is ‘rigged’ and has called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US?

The Clinton Campaign’s tag line, “I’m with her” sums up the sentiment of most of the American people. It’s not “I’m for her” or “I support her”, but a slightly reluctant acceptance that on balance she is preferable to “the Donald”

Clinton has begun to persuade people more effectively. In the last debate, she spoke passionately about the necessity of Roe v Wade and showed her skill and stamina when outlining what she had done in her 30 years of politics. But she still has some major obstacles ahead, and I don‘t mean conspiracies about her health or Wikileaks documents, which seem to have little basis in truth or relevance.

Clinton has to face much more serious problems than alt-right conspiracy theories. She is a neo-conservative who becomes Commander-in-Chief as the US enters its most difficult relationship with Russia since the Cold War. Her use of Cold War rhetoric throughout the debate has gone unnoticed because of the terrifying prospect embodied in Trump. But it has been very present, and it is not a promising feature of her campaign.

Indeed, in spite her ‘Stronger Together’ tag line, she has not run a campaign from the bottom up.

According to OpenSecrets, 55 percent of her campaign donations have come from large individual donations, from people like Mark Cuban, Warren Buffet and Michael Bloomberg. She also has a tricky history with sound bites. Politifact have shown a number of uncomfortable views from her past. In a 2004 Senate Speech, she said that marriage was “a sacred bond between a man and a woman” and though she has long supported LGBTQ+ rights, it is only in 2013 that she came round to the idea of same-sex marriage.

Her historic comments about race are also worrying. Black Lives Matters has criticised her for using the phrase “super predators” when referring to a bill that sent a disproportionate number of young African-Americans to prison. Clinton has said she would not use these words today, but their existence on record may cause some to pause before uttering “I’m for her”.

Clinton is an intelligent and highly skilled politician, yet she may find gaining positive support harder than the previous year’s campaigning. She must bring together a country that is bitterly divided between the Bernie left, the Trump right and the large group that simply dreams of another Obama term. We can only hope that in 2020, when she faces re-election, her campaign is “I’m for her” and not just “I’m with her”.