Joining me this week are the up-and-coming Oxford rock band, Tongue. After a gorgeously hot and sunny day, I had the pleasure of watching their electric set on my home turf, the Christ Church bar.
Consisting of front-man James (2nd Year Mathematician at Worcester), bass player Tilly (2nd Year English and French student at Pembroke), guitarist Doudou (2nd Year Mathematics at Christ Church), and drummer Jack (2nd Year English at Wadham), the band met me after their set to discuss who and what Tongue are, their favourite memories as a band, and their love for the humble Dyson Airblade…
So how did you guys meet and form a band?
James: I was on a total crusade during freshers’ week of 1st year, after introducing myself I would tack on ‘do you play guitar’ or ‘do you play drums’, and Doudou plays guitar. We met at this introductory maths lecture. And I met James because he’s part of a different band…look at his t-shirt!
Jack: I’m in Blue Bayou, and we both played at Wadstock, and James found us and liked us!
James: We came across Tilly, because I know Alec, and he knows Tilly, and she plays bass, and plays well!
Jack: Very well.
James: Everyone I know who plays an instrument has played in Tongue at some point. Basically 10 people? Actually, 11. AND a chairman, Jacob. He may or may not be here tonight.
Taking a brief break halfway into their set, James was keen to help me continue my journalistic endeavours – so I asked, accompanied by a lovely drumroll from Jack: Who is your biggest musical inspiration?
James: It’s Pavement. Yeah. Official answer is Pavement. Anyone else got any suggestions?…no? Yeah, Pavement!
What is your favourite song to perform as a band?
Doudou: Say it on three?
James: Yep, ok let’s do it on three….
Tilly: No wait, I’m between two and I wanna say the same as you guys…. ok ready.
All together: One, two, three… Dyson Airblade.
I had to ask: What was it about this hand-dryer that was so special for the band?
James: It’s just the best type of dryer. You know you’re going to have dry hands, the physical intensity of it is just incomparable. I have a belief about hand dryers, you’ve got to put one hand on top of the other slide them in and out alternately, it should be systematic! And that’s what a Dyson Airblade is…systematic! What on earth is better than an instructional hand dryer? You’ve got clear communication.
Tilly: I like the Dyson V version; you know the ones with the handles that jut out (like the ones at Society café? I ask) I don’t know about the society café toilet, but all I can say is there’s something very powerful about the stance of that Dyson.
What exactly did you mean when you said that you embody: ‘The typical machismo of post-funk jazz fusion?’ – I could sense the irony but thought I’d get some clarification.
James: Just a little joke about jazz-fusion – not to get sincere, but local music is an old-boys club. Our Spotify is 59% male listeners, an all-time low for us. It’s a joke about how machismo the industry is.
What is your creative process like? Do you write all together, or do you bring ideas to one another. Tell me how it gets thrashed out.
James: I’ll come in with a skeleton, and everyone else will put the meat on. I encourage them to put their own special meat onto the bones. To me whoever is playing IS Tongue, and I am always saying I want you to make this your own.
What is your favourite memory together as a band?
James: Mine is when we first rehearsed. Doudou was late as shit, and me, Fin, and Mathias played Dress Like Shit, and it was…fine. But Doudou arrived and we ran it again and it sounded beefy, and fun, and just so much better.
Tilly: I really like when we ran onto the train at the last minute, and we all went to Didcot together. We were just ambling without a care in the world and then all had to frantically pile onto the train.
Any special business in Didcot?
James: I live there, and I have a shitty little studio in my garage called the box where we rehearse.
What’s the story behind the name?
James: Deep down I wanted the name to be Feral Beast Club – Doudou and Mathias, everytime I suggested it, were like yeah, ok, that’s an option….
Doudou: someone just said Tongue one day, right?
James: Yeah, someone who isn’t in the band anymore suggested we call it Tongue. As an 18-year-old getting a text from a 23-year-old saying ‘I like Tongue’ was something I’d never experienced before…
And finally, please tell people why they should buy your album!
James: They should buy the album because Jack couldn’t buy his cigs from the Tesco opposite Christ Church.
Jack: Because there’s music on it!
James: Because Mathias Franz plays drums on it and he’s a god incarnate.
On Thursday night, the Oxford Union voted against the motion ‘This House Believes British Museums Are Not Very British.’ The final count had 95 members voting for the motion and 155 members voting against.
Speaking in favour of the motion was former Conservative Minister for Culture the Rt Hon. Lord Vaizey of Didcot PC. He was joined by second-year Philosophy, Politics, and Economics student Aliyyah Gbadamosi (University College) and first-year law student Karma Gad (Mansfield College).
The opposition featured Willie Jackson, New Zealand politician and former unionist, broadcaster and Urban Maori leader. He was joined by Gary Vikan, a former director of the Walters Art Museum, and second-year Philosophy, Politics, and Economics student Shermar Pryce (University College).
Aliyyah Gbadamosi opened the case for the proposition with information on the British Museum: it displays over 8,000 works of art and artefacts, she told us, yet more than 70% of these items were acquired abroad. She argued that to call the British Museum’s artefacts ‘British’ is to say that the objects that a thief steals and then displays belong to him.
She acknowledged that having foreign artefacts is a common practice for “universal museums” but argued that in the case of the British Museum those objects were acquired through violence and injustice, making modern day possession of them unjust.
Shermar Pryce then spoke in favour of the opposition. Pryce agreed that many objects displayed in museums in the UK were acquired illegitimately but stated: “What is more British than that?” He argued that institutions like museums must tell the stories of their country and of their people and so museums in the UK must tell the colonial history of the British Empire.
Pryce argued that because Rosetta Stone became the property of the British after they defeated Napoleon in Egypt, it represents one of Britain’s “favourite pastimes”: defeating the French.
Karma Gad then continued the case for the proposition. She acknowledged that universal museums have an educational value, but questioned whether it’s “worth it” if it comes to the detriment of the culture they’re teaching about. She noted that the British Museum’s Ethiopian tablets are so precious that they have never been on public display and argued they don’t educate the public yet the Museum still keeps them. She also criticised the “patronising” argument that British museums are entitled to foreign artefacts because nations cannot care for them themselves.
Gary Vikan spoke next for the opposition. He also chose to focus on the case of the British Museum because “it’s the biggest, it’s in deep trouble, and it’s changed [his] life.” He reminisced about going there for the first time and being amazed by the art that he had only ever seen in textbooks.
He argued that the universal museum is an invention of the British and by collecting the art of the world, museums like the British Museum are “essentially British.”
The Rt Hon. Lord Vaizey of Didcot PC then spoke in favour of the motion, and delved into the UK’s Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest, which bans an object from leaving the UK if it has a strong cultural link to British history. He said we believe in keeping objects that are culturally important to us and we should apply the same rule to others.
He then argued in favour of giving the Parthenon marbles back to Greece and concluded that museums represent a Britain that does not believe in “fair play”, which is no longer the case.
Willie Jackson closed the case for the opposition and argued: “British museums are very, very British because it’s very, very, very British to take from indigenous people.” He declared that taking other peoples’ culture and claiming it as their own is “very British” and also described how last year the British Museum lost around 200 items that it was meant to protect as “very British again.” He concluded by expressing hope that “your tradition of justice brings our ancestors home.”
Why have humans survived as the ones to travel to Mars, create artificial intelligence and make use of the world’s resources unlike any other species? Dutch historian and author, Rutger Bregman, author of the pop history book Humankind might have the answers. Through scientific arguments supporting the inherent kindness of Homo Sapiens, Bregman argues that “most people, deep down, are pretty decent.”
Brian Hare’s theory of a shift in perspective from “survival of the fittest” to “survival of the friendliest” is one supported by Bregman: “I recently became a father. My daughter is 2 and a half years old right now. I love her very dearly, but it’s quite clear to me that she is very stupid. Toddlers are not all that impressive compared to, say, pigs or chimpanzees of a similar age. There is one thing which they really excel at, which psychologists call social learning. They’re really good at imitating us. The way my daughter talks is sometimes quite funny and disturbing, because sometimes she sounds like a little history professor. Our ability to learn from one another is our secret superpower. Loneliness is comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day.” On the other hand, humans are also capable of committing terrible atrocities and waging wars that a “penguin could never dream of”. And this is why it took more than a couple, but about 400 pages, to explain Humankind.
Growing up in different environments has a considerable effect on our behavioral patterns and habits, being social creatures. This could include putting the milk or cereal in first, having a jam or clotted cream base on a scone, reading Bregman’s books or watching Love Island. Growing up in the Netherlands, Bregman has experienced the social norms that have led it to rank as one of the happiest countries in the world: “In the book (Humankind), I talk about how nomadic hunter gatherers live their lives. There’s one very striking aspect that they have a reverse hierarchy where the group controls the leaders. It’s very dangerous to be a narcissist in a nomadic hunter gatherer society, because quickly the group will crack down on you. And that often reminds me of the Netherlands actually. So in the Netherlands we call it ‘hayfield culture’. As soon as you think you’re more important than others, people start dunking on you in a pretty massive way. So, it’s sometimes a bit difficult to be ambitious. There’s a famous Dutch saying, “Act normal, that’s crazy enough.”
You are who you surround yourself with. The Plastics from Mean girls or The Nerds from any 2000s movie, you do you. Bregman’s experience at university led him down an unconventional path to finding what is truly cool: “I was initially a very lazy student in the Netherlands. We have a grading system that goes from 1, which is the worst you can get, to 10, which is a perfect score, and for me 5.5 was the best possible grade to get because that was just enough to get a pass. So, for me the most important thing in my first year was drinking enough beer and wasting enough time. But then what happened is that I became a member of a small Student Society in Utrecht, another city in the Netherlands. One of my friends, who was a member, brought me along and I fell completely in love with that student society. I guess it was the way people related to each other. There was such an honest and natural curiosity that most of the members had. It was also the kind of conversations that were much more interesting that what I was used to. So it turns out that curiosity and ambition are not just things that you can be born with but are also highly contagious. My definition of cool really changed during that period.”
How many people grow up dreaming of money? A house made of money and not cheese, or a money themed birthday party instead of princesses? As foundational as it is, how much money do we really need to chase to be happy? : “There’s a famous Daniel Kahneman study and his number was $75,000 a year, and after that there are huge diminishing returns to getting wealthier. I don’t pity those people to be honest. The world is lying at your feet basically. And you’ve got only one life. You’ve got only one career. A career on average lasts 80,000 hours. That’s 10,000 working days. That’s 2000 work weeks, and then you retire and then you die. So time is the most precious thing you have on Earth. Your teens and your 20s are absolutely essential because this is the period in which you’re writing the constitution of your own life. Usually, past the age of 30, people get stuck. So make your 20s really count. Don’t be a sheep. Don’t be a zombie. Don’t follow all those silly people to what my friend (and Oxford University student) Simon van Teutem calls ‘the Bermuda triangle of talent’: banking, corporate law, consultancy. Being really successful is not about buying that big house or owning a boat. Being really successful is helping as many people as possible. That’s what it should be about.”
A few ideas that Bregman advocates for are a universal basic income, open borders and a 15-hour work week in his book Utopia for Realists. Vigilant of being called naive, Bregman has sprinkled the definition of realism with hope. While believing that there is much to learn from Machiavelli to get things done, he holds faith in a world growing into a utopian reality: “A couple of decades from now, three-quarters of all countries are going to have a declining birth rate. We have also seen that the birth rate has plummeted and is plummeting in many rich and middle income countries. And in the end, the most precious capital that countries have are its people, right? And there’s already the global war for talent going on. I think that the countries that will be the most prosperous in the next couple of decades will also be the most tolerant countries. And that is why places like Oxford University can be so inspiring, because of its diversity.”
If you’re struggling to see the benefits of Brexit, Bregman seems to have an optimistic view on it: “Britain has also delivered a service for the rest of Europe, because they have shown us that getting out of the EU is such a bad idea that we don’t have to try it for ourselves in the Netherlands. Even Geert Wilders, the right wing populist, the most racist, xenophobic politician in the Netherlands is also against Nexit. And we really have to thank Britain for that. So thank you for your service, Great Britain. Thank you for proving to the rest of the EU that getting out of the EU is one of the most stupid ideas you can ever come up with.” Sorry if that opener was misleading.
“We live in a world of global apartheid, where the country in which you are born already determines 60% of your income. And I think it would make a lot of sense to abolish all borders. I mean, that’s the utopian end goal. Now, obviously there’s a lot of intermediate steps, but we’ve got a lot of empirical economic research and most of it shows that immigration is both good for immigrants, obviously, they get a massive gain in wages, but it’s also good for receiving countries. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes and they pay quite a bit in taxes, they contribute much more than they take. That’s just what the evidence shows us, but people find it very hard to follow the evidence when it comes to this and that is one of the dark sides of human nature.”
Bregman’s upcoming book is about the waste of talent, and here’s what he has to say about the role of Oxford’s talent pool: “So many smart people who go to the best universities get stuck in jobs that don’t add much value to the world. Lots of young physics students, for example, when they’re young, dream about going to Mars or finding a cure for cancer.” And you might not like this if you’re considering selling-out: ”But then they turn 25 and there’s some hedge fund in London that gets them a shitload of money, and then they’re lost. There was this quote that went viral 15 years ago from someone that worked at Facebook, “The greatest minds of my generation think about how to make people click on ads.” And that is so sad, right?” His message: “Don’t go for the big corporates. We owe it to the world.”
Bregman‘s books Utopia for Realists and Humankind are available at Blackwells and Waterstones.
It’s a Wednesday evening and I’m curled on a JCR sofa with my friends, peppermint tea in hand. Whereas once we would have been throwing back shots, we now relegate ourselves to onlookers, marvelling at the freshers who career around the room, “Park End” bouncing from their lips.
You may already have crafted an image of my anti-social and, dare I say, boring friend group, but I implore you not to be so quick in your stereotyping (herbal teas are for everyone, ok?). As we sit on this sofa, esteemed elders that we are, I don’t feel boring. I don’t feel that I’m missing out.
But why is this? What about the sweaty caverns of Plush or the narrow corridors of Bridge has made me so immune to the allure of a club night? Perhaps it’s the notoriously bad nightlife in Oxford – “this is no Manchester, no Newcastle”, my northern friends decry. Although this is evidently true, I instinctively know that it isn’t the answer I’m seeking. A hardened Cowley veteran, my infrequent club nights this year have been at O2, Bully and Glamorous. Of these clubs, it’s the half-empty basement bar, Glamorous, in which I’ve made the best memories, dancing to Wham!’s ‘Last Christmas’ as my friends countdown to my birthday. Given that Glam can hardly be deserving of the label ‘club’, I know that it’s not more tightly packed rooms and louder DnB that I desire.
At the heart of this debate is a stark generational shift. It’s not that we don’t want to go clubbing in Oxford, it’s that we don’t want to go clubbing at all.
In February of this year, Rekom (the owner of clubs including Atik and Pryzm) went into administration. As readers will by now be aware, Atik Oxford is closing in June, a headline of such importance that it could only be topped by the northern lights and a geomagnetic storm last seen in 2003. Atik’s closure is not testament to Oxford’s questionable nightlife. Rekom had already shut the doors to 17 of its venues; the fate of Atik Oxford rested on discussions with the club’s landlord, rather than financial dire straits. Nevertheless, while Atik and Park End (Street) may not have been compatible after all, Rekom’s troubles are an indication that my lack of enthusiasm for clubbing is not unique.
Gen Zers just aren’t clubbers and there are stats to back this up. The NHS revealed in 2021 that 38% of 16-to-24-year-olds in England either don’t drink or haven’t drunk in the last 12 months. A survey by Keep Hush in 2022 found that only 25% of Gen Z would ever consider a night out. It’s my suspicion that these slightly outdated figures have only been exacerbated in the past few years.
Rekom put forward that its financial difficulty was due to the fact that one in three young Brits are socialising less. It’s a plausible argument given the aftermath of a global pandemic, a steady increase in spiking, and an ever-present cost of living crisis. Even in a city as small as Oxford, it’s impossible to go on a night out without feeling the sweaty hand of a stranger snatching at your waist or droplets of beer-breath settling on the back of your neck. A friend’s single vodka coke at a recent event cost her £16, much to our incredulity. But despite all of this, I don’t think Rekom’s conclusion captures the full picture.
I contend that we’re not socialising less, but instead socialising differently. It has become all too easy to label our generation as TikTok-obsessed internet addicts, but, in my opinion, it’s actually social media which is inspiring us to be more creative with how we spend our time. Town and Gown was all the rage this year, but this is only representative of a wider running craze sweeping social media by storm. The running frenzy isn’t purely pandemic-related: the 2025 London Marathon has received 840,000 applications, smashing the record of 578,000 set last year. From a quick scroll on Instagram, I’m led to believe that students have left nightclubs and joined running clubs.
But that’s not all. Be it crocheting, group reading, baking, swimming, travelling, picnicking, listening to live music, or painting candles and pottery, you bet my social media has suggested it to me. We’ve been told by TikTok (or, for the more refined among us, Reels) to romanticise our lives. We’re certainly not living as the ‘main character’ when shoved up against the wall of a club.
Last weekend, I went to visit my sister at her uni. Very spontaneously, we hopped on an evening train to a tiny seaside town and made our way to the seafront. It was when I resurfaced after having plunged into spearmint-fresh waters that the only other person on the beach, backlit by a soft pink sunset, said “aren’t you glad we didn’t go clubbing?”.
Oxford University Jewish Society (JSoc) alongside the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) have released a joint statement condemning the recent discovery of antisemitic graffiti at Regent’s Park College “reported by students to be Nazi swastikas.” They urged the University administration to “show zero tolerance to the antisemitic and hostile atmosphere which has been allowed to flourish at Oxford University.”
On 9th May, Oxford University’s Vice-Chancellor, Irene Tracey, attended a meeting with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to “protect Jewish students” and combat antisemitism on UK university campuses. Representatives from UJS were also in attendance. Their current statement goes on to say that: “Since October 7th, we have seen an overwhelming surge in antisemitism on campus, and this has only increased in recent weeks. Shamefully our experiences have been denied by JCR and MCR motions accusing us of ‘weaponising antisemitism’.”
Several statements of solidarity with the Oxford Action for Palestine encampment passed recently by college JCRs have referenced the “weaponisation of antisemitism” in relation with these demonstrations, including that accusations of antisemitism are “wholly at odds of reality of these encampments, which are safe spaces for Jews, Muslims, peoples of other faiths and none.”
Olly De Herrera, president of OXJSoc, told Cherwell: “Yesterday (May 21nd) we became aware of two incidents of antisemitic graffiti discovered in the bathrooms of Regent’s Park College, which were highlighted to Regent’s students via an internal email from the College.” Also clarifying that “we were told by students at Regent’s Park College that the graffiti was Swastikas.”
Sir Malcolm Evans, Principal of Regent’s Park College, spoke to Cherwell on May 23rd and officially confirmed that the discovered graffiti was “in the form of a number of swastikas.”
On midday of Tuesday May 21nd, members of Regent’s Park College were addressed in an email by current Dean Dr. Lynn Robson regarding the incident: “Anti-semitic graffiti was drawn on the walls of two cubicles in the toilets adjacent to the Hall, and has now been removed.” It goes on to state that: “It is hard not to connect this to the impending votes on motions that have been put forward to JCR and MCR.”
Robson reaffirmed support for “freedom of speech, and academic freedom within this College and the wider University … which is conducted respectfully and does not amount to harassment, violates the dignity of others, or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.”
She also warned that “we do not tolerate any instances of abuse, offensive behaviour, open or covert hostility, directed at others on the grounds of race, religion or belief … This and any other instances of such behaviour will warrant Serious Disciplinary Action under Section 5 of the Student Disciplinary Policy.” All students were advised to contact the Dean directly, or the college’s Harassment Officers in case of having experienced or witnessed any such behaviour.
Maria Jabal, a Junior Dean in Regents Park College, followed up Robson’s email by providing a link to an open letter hosted on the website Oxford since 7/10 to all students addressed in the original communication. Her message read: “I’m attaching an open letter to the university on behalf of Jewish students, academics and friends which I think would be helpful for you to be aware of.”
Ten minutes later, Robson sent an additional email again addressed to the entire College community explaining that: “The email from Maria Jabal was sent in error, and from her personal account. ”
On Thursday May 23, Cherwell received a full statement from Sir Malcolm Evans, Principal of Regent’s Park, following the public statement of condemnation delivered by JSoc and UJS:
“Mutual respect and toleration and the freedom of religion or belief is a central pillar of Baptist identity and thus foundational to the ethos of Regent’s. This is reflected in much of the work of the College and, speaking personally, is a subject to which I have devoted much of my professional academic life.
Early this week anti-Semitic graffiti in the form of a number of swastikas was found within the College. This is deeply shocking and is a matter that the College, and I personally, take extremely seriously. Such behaviour has no place here and cannot be considered acceptable under any circumstances. We do not know who did this or why it was done; but be assured that appropriate action will be taken should we become aware of the identity of those responsible – as it would in respect of any such display of hatred or hostility towards members of our College, or others.
Steps have already been taken to provide support and we will continue to assist all students who have been affected by what has occurred. The College has always prided itself on offering a welcoming and inclusive community – something which has recently been confirmed in a JCR survey of student life. I hope that we are able to learn from what has happened by being reminded of the need to be understanding and supportive of each other as we share in our common life together. I am confident that the values that underpin the College will continue to guide us as we do so.”
If you’re at all in tune with Oxford’s nightlife scene, I’m sure you’ve heard of “intergalactic boogie service” Martian Moves – but who are they, and what are they here to do? I spoke with three of the four-man group of St Peter’s and LMH undergrads (Michael Donlon, Louis Bryan, Will Vanhinsbergh and Luca Burgess) to find out more as they approach their 1-year anniversary.
How did you get started as a group?
As I ask this question, Louis arrives to the call with a massively swollen eye from a bug bite he’d got at a rave the night before, much to the others’ amusement.
Michael: “In Hilary of our first year we [he and Louis] went to the open music night that the OU Electronic Music Society runs with open decks for people who want to go and play some tunes and learn to DJ. And that’s when we met Luca, who was also really passionate and interested in music. We all went to Glamorous after that – we were just talking about it all night. Eventually we were like ‘we should just all do it together!’ and went back to Louis’ room to brainstorm what we want to do and what to call it – which was more difficult than you’d think.”
Image Credit: Coco Cottam.
How would you describe your brand image and what you’re trying to do as MM?
Michael: “Luca is the one with the creative vision, he’s the one who creates the distinctive artwork. Our brand image is strong because we can release loads of posters, stickers, flyers and stuff – they are all a bit different but all in our own style.”
Will: “Definitely fun and silly are the two main words – like not taking electronic music too seriously. So it’s accessible for people who aren’t really into it and there are good tunes – but also so people who are interested in electronic music can get behind it as well.”
Louis: “Dance floor focused – not necessarily standing on a big stage, but being part of the crowd. The focus has been on the dancing and people having a good time. We had our first few events in the Bully front room which worked because it’s quite an intimate space – you’re basically in a bar with everyone else.”
Michael: “And all those events have been free which is a big thing for us – even though we now do ticketed events, we still try and do the free ones to try and get people down on a weekday and have a boogie.”
What do you think your impact’s been on Oxford nightlife?
Michael: “We’re definitely walking in the footsteps of a lot of really good nights that have come before us. Spice Lounge was a massive influence and a massive help to us – they really took us under their wing when we got to uni. And there’s also Goodness which came from Oxford a while ago now. So we’re trying to keep that legacy. I don’t think people currently in our year realise how good Oxford can be – there’s some really good electronic music here. Between COVID and the people who did it [Spice Lounge and Goodness] graduating, it’s kind of died off. So hopefully people come to our nights and realise you can do it – especially first years, like ‘oh I’m gonna go do this with like a group of my mates’. Student-led nights are important, and hopefully more people will want to take part and end up really interested.”
How does it work as a business model?
Michael: “We’ve always gone into it going ‘this isn’t something we’re going to make loads of money from’ especially in Oxford – if you do something like this in Leeds or Bristol, there’s definitely scope to make quite a bit of money off student life. But for us, as long as we’re not losing money, we don’t really mind. You kind of have to have faith in people turning up basically – especially in the current club climate, people don’t want to buy tickets before the night, they just want to buy on the door.”
Will: “The one year [party] is the most we will have spent on DJs – but we’re really excited for them – and if we don’t make a loss, we’re chilling in our eyes. We don’t really pay ourselves; the money just gets put back into the next night – God, it feels like slave labour for a while. We’re just promoters really, but then with ball bookings we’re the act as well – but really, we see the DJs we book as the proper artists.”
What’s coming up?
Will: “Our 1-year party is on 6th of June – it’s not been officially released yet but we’ve put a lot of work into it. We’ve tried to book some really cool DJs, so it should be really good. It will be our first time in the Bully backroom – we’re going back to the club where we first started, but on a bigger scale.”
Louis: “Look out for some stickers around Oxford with a phone number. If you ring that phone number, it will tell you in an alien voice about the night.”
Oxford University has released a statement about the recent protests organised by Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P). A sit-in protest in the University’s administrative offices in Wellington square resulted in the arrest of 16 students. The statement describes the “direct action tactics” used by the protesters as “violent and criminal” and instructs them that “this is not how to do it.”
The statement asserts that the actions taken by OA4P have “gone beyond [the] line” of peaceful protest. According to the University, the protest was not peaceful but a violent action that involved the demonstrators “forcibly overpowering the receptionist” and causing distress to staff. OA4P is also accused of “making inaccurate statements and claims about the University” and putting up “defamatory” posters of the Vice-Chancellor.
According to the statement, efforts of the University have been directed to achieving “practical” results, such as working with the Palestinian Society on strengthening scholarship provision for applicants from Gaza and the West Bank. The University says it has already strengthened its CARA commitment to academics at risk and begun work on a crisis scholarship scheme for Palestinian students.
The University denies claims made by OA4P that they have refused to negotiate and asserts that “the University has continuously been in dialogue with concerned students and faculty, including people who are involved in the encampment.” The statement also describes OA4P’s pre-conditions for negotiations as “prejudicial” and it accuses OA4P of not being “transparent about their membership nor whose interests they represent.”
The statement emphasises the “deeply intimidating environment” the protests have created, in particular, for “Jewish students and staff and members of the local Jewish community.” The University stresses the importance of safety and maintaining “foundational principles of dignity, care and respect” that “some of the protesters have undermined.”
The statements concludes by asserting that dialogue in the University doesn’t have to “follow others’ playbooks” and that recent developments highlight the need to “teach our students how to disagree well and with respect and courtesy and through our many formal and informal channels.”
OA4P issued a statement about the sit-in in response, maintaining that their protest was peaceful and they intended to leave as soon as the administration met for negotiations.
OA4P told Cherwell that all 16 protesters were released without charges and that this was evidence “refuting the narrative that anyone was violent.” They also denied the claim that their protest included a “forcible overpowering” of a receptionist during protests.
The statement continued: “When informed of the threat of arrest, the students willingly stood up and voluntarily offered to vacate the premises.” They alleged that following this, the students were arrested and their phones were taken from them, prohibiting recording.
They said that protesters then stood in front of building exits to block the police from removing the arrested students but that the police had “violently pushed and thrown demonstrators to the floor.”
One of the characteristic features of the 1997 Labour Party general election campaign was their use of D:Ream’s song “Things Can Only Get Better” in their campaign video. This song was selected to conjure optimism following what many saw as eighteen years of Conservative failure which had left the country at an all-time low. Labour had been far ahead in the polls since as far back as 1992, following the failures of “Black Wednesday’, when the Tories shed their reputation as reliable managers of the economy. Unemployment, despite being lower than certain peaks under Thatcher, had also spiked at 10.7%, since the previous general election in 1992. All of this while a civil war over the European Union rendered the Conservative party divided.
Sound familiar?
Over the last few months, there has been growing speculation about the similarities between the general election of 1997 and the one to be held in a month and a half’s time. Ostensibly, such comparisons appear warranted: we, too, have a floundering conservative government whose long stretch in power has left them without ideas. They have had to deal with crisis after crisis, are nearing the end of their term, and are marred with a mounting number of accusations of corruption and mismanagement that have led to economic despair, not least the paragon of economic incompetence that was Liz Truss’ mini budget. Ever since that disaster struck, the Conservatives have been unable to make up a vast gap in the polls with a Labour party who claim to offer ‘change’ in an attempt to give hope to a country that appears to be pinballing between crises with little sense of a long-term plan.
However, the pundits are wrong to project the results of the 1997 election onto this year’s contest. It will be of little surprise that the tempting comparison is overly simplistic, and leaves a number of fundamental differences in the politics of today compared with that of 27 years ago unconfronted.
Those who back Labour’s vacant policy platform highlight that when Starmer has introduced potential flagship policies, they have been vulnerable to theft by the Conservatives, who then make sly U-turns. Take, for example, Labour’s long-standing aim to abolish non-dom tax status, a move which it was recently announced that the Conservatives were also exploring despite having previously strongly opposed it.
Again, however, this example demonstrates precisely one of the reasons why 1997 is so different from 2024. The fact that the policy platforms of the two parties are similar enough for the Conservatives to poach the ideas of Labour says a lot about the dearth of ideas in British politics. In 1996, New Labour published New Labour, New Life for Britain, which set out, in detail, the party’s centrist vision for the future of the country. Included in the ‘pre-manifesto’ were promises to cut infant class sizes to 30, reduce backlogs in the NHS and the justice system, and get more young people into work.
They were able to own these policies because they knew their justifications would be ideologically distinct enough from anything the Conservatives would be able to support. Indeed, when New Labour, New Life for Britain was released, it was met with horror by the Conservatives, who responded with their own tagline: “New Labour, New Danger”. Contrastingly, both parties being unwilling or unable to make any significant promises this close to an election because they fear their opposition appropriating them indicates a severe lack of integrity and ideology in politics. This bodes badly: “more of the same” will not be enough to get the UK out of its current slump.
Of course, from Labour’s point of view, it might be argued that this fear of ‘policy theft’ does not represent a lack of ideas in their own party, but purely from their opposite numbers in the Conservative party. After all, being the party in government, the Conservatives have the means to ‘steal policies’ by enacting them through parliament, while Labour, currently, do not.
However, even where Labour have made promises they have been forced into several u-turns. For example, when Keir Starmer ran for leadership of his party, he promised renationalisation of major public services such as mail, energy, and water, promises he has since largely abandoned. Even where they have not fully cast aside core pledges, a number of promises have been heavily watered down, including in pledged green investment, which was reduced from £28 billion a year to just £4.7 billion a year.
Major pledges for constitutional reform have also fallen victim to U-turns. In 1997, when coming to power, the Labour Party promised and delivered major constitutional reform through its devolution settlements for Scotland and Wales. Under Starmer, the reform ‘promised’ by Labour was the abolition and replacement of the House of Lords. Once again, however, this pledge has been shelved, under the argument that constitutional reform is a drain on both time and energy for governments.
Another potential reason for Labour’s weakness on these core promises is the UK’s current bleak economic forecast. Growth in the UK has essentially flatlined, the national debt is at 98% of GDP, and the tax burden has hit record post-war highs. The economic dire straits the country faces hint at another crucial difference between the incoming Labour government and that of 1997: spending. Indeed, any incoming government will be very limited in how it can increase spending. As of now, the only way to do so would be to either raise taxes – which is politically unpopular – or to borrow more – which has longer-term negative implications. By contrast, despite the chaos of Conservative rule, when the Labour party came to power in 1997 economic growth was strong and unemployment and inflation were both falling, which gave a much stronger fiscal base for the incoming government.This outlook allowed the New Labour government to increase public spending by 4.4% per year between 1997-2010, which was largely directed towards the NHS, education, and transport.
As I write, Labour have announced that they would plan to effectively renationalise all rail services within five years of coming to office. This significant statement suggests that we might get a reasonable platform of policies announced before the general election, but regardless, the party has a long way to go for voters to truly gain an understanding of what the party stands for. The party has also gone on to announce its six core ‘pledges’ that they would enact once in power. One of these pledges is to provide 40,000 more NHS appointments and operations per week, which is to be funded through closing tax loopholes. Eyebrows will be raised, however, at the fact that earlier this year Starmer and his Shadow Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, said Labour would hold the door ‘wide open’ for the private sector in the NHS. Such a move marks another significant U-turn from Labour policy as recent as 2021, which pledged to end outsourcing to the private sector entirely.
Regarding election campaigns, it is crucial to note that the UK is today a very different cultural landscape from where it was in 1997. New Labour’s use of “Things Can Only Get Better” to reinforce their image as the ‘cool party’ capitalised on a trend that swept the country in the latter half of the 90s. “Cool Britannia”, typified by developments like Britpop, Euro 96, and a new wave of British cinema, represented a revival of national pride following two decades of division. “Things Can Only Get Better” succeeded in typifying this pride, capturing a popular and persistent desire to feel, as Blair often said, like Britain was a ‘young country’ again. Set against John Major’s sleepy vision of Britain as the eternal land of “warm beer, green suburbs” and “old maids bicycling to holy communion through the morning midst,” Blair did a fine job of claiming this newfound British “coolness” for the Labour party’s own core values. He morphed Labour into the ‘hip’ party which embraced a modern Britain which had become significantly more diverse in the preceding twenty years. Through this leadership, he also won the support of major, traditionally Conservative, newspapers like The Sun, which allowed the party more room to announce policy without the threat of significant criticism.
By contrast, the Labour party under Starmer appears significantly less dynamic, weighed down by a deflated national spirit. Not for want of trying, that is: Starmer has also attempted to bring to the fore ideas of British identity and its place on the world stage, vying relentlessly to reignite a sense of national pride. However crass his adoption of British national symbols might seem, Starmer’s incessant plastering of the Union Jack all over his campaign videos and speech platforms doubtless speaks to a real desire to claim for Labour a patriotism which consists in serving the interests and welfare of Britain’s people, rather than in anachronisms about our ‘glorious’ past. However, Labour cannot alone drive a wider cultural revival: today, Britain’s structural economic woes, its lingering divisions over the political taboo of Brexit and its crumbling public services could not be a further cry from the rose-tinted optimism of youth that Blair captured in his campaign. National pride is declining, and is being replaced by widespread confusion about what it should mean to be British, and why we ought to continue being proud of our country.
One important question to ask is whether an emulation of Labour’s 1997 administration would be so desirable. While Blair’s New Labour provided hope to many during their election campaign and did indeed deliver on many promises, his governance had its failings.
The Blair administration can be credited with the birth of a modern era of spin doctoring which aimed to nullify every blunder or failing and avoid political accountability. While politicians have always been seen as relatively untrustworthy, faith in our representatives is at an all time low, and at a minimum New Labour contributed to the development of the conditions to make that possible. They also, of course, had major failings such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the fact that income inequality grew during their thirteen years of power – not a very ‘Labour’ development.
—
With a general election now set for July 4th, the campaign circus has begun. It was much cause for amusement that Sunak’s bizarre rain-soaked statement announcing the election was drowned out by protesters blasting “Things Can Only Get Better”. Given that they are over twenty points behind in the polls, it seems like a strange time for the Conservatives to call an election. Not that it was a unanimous decision of course: for many Conservative MPs, Sunak’s announcement comes as a shock, and a concerning one at the very least. But, as Martin Rowson so aptly represented in last month’s cartoon on the Rwanda bill, the survivor’s game is an exhausting one. And then there is the consideration that the longer Sunak leaves the election, the weaker he makes the Conservative party look.
Image Credit: UK Prime Minister CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
On the prime minister’s logic, it really does seem like things can only get worse for the Conservatives. Where does this leave Labour?
If current polling is correct, then Keir Starmer will take the premiership in July with a comfortable majority. Nonetheless, Labour cannot be complacent. As demonstrated in 2017, when incumbent Theresa May was forced unexpectedly into coalition with the DUP after a disastrous campaign, polls can be misleading. What is guaranteed is that the outlook for whoever ends the year in charge will be significantly bleaker than it looked in 1997, even if inflation is under control and everyday goods are – slowly – becoming more affordable again. Rachel Reeves recently said that Labour will not be able to “turn things around straight away” – possibly a slightly less optimistic catchline than “Things Can Only Get Better”. Whatever happens come July 4th, what the people of the United Kingdom need is hope, and it is in the hands of politicians to give it to them.
Calling on all Cherwell readers to REGISTER TO VOTE! In the 2019 general election, under half of young people aged 18-24 made their voices heard. Let’s get those figures up.
If you have citizenship in Britain, Ireland or a Commonwealth country and have leave to remain in the UK, you are eligible vote. Click here to register.
If you’re a humanities student, like me, then you’ll probably be quite excited about the new Stephen A. Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities. It’s a brand-new, interdisciplinary space in the Radcliffe Observatory Quarter and a beautiful building to boot. I hope it will put pride back into the humanities at Oxford. It’s an expensive building too.
The issues surrounding college funding are all too painfully clear. Older colleges have large endowments and the wealthiest alumni. This means they can splurge on swanky new accommodation buildings, sports facilities, and study centres. But this article is about the faculties, institutes, and research groups that sit above the college level and belong to the University itself. In particular, it’s about the people and organisations that seem so keen to invest in the UK’s educational capital. And where better to start than with the man who gave this University its largest donation since the Renaissance?
Mr Schwarzman is a well-known American billionaire philanthropist. He has previously donated to the New York Public Library (now housed principally in the Stephen A. Schwarzman Building). He has also bankrolled MIT (the Schwarzman College of Computing). In 2016, he launched a scholarship for Chinese masters students (the Schwarzman Scholars). See a pattern?
Schwarzman gives such large donations that his recipients are obliged to take his name – establishing an inextricable link between the man himself and his donees. Accepting Schwarzman’s money amounts to a tacit endorsement (or at least a happy tolerance) of his personal history. This would probably be fine if Schwarzman was like Japanese social educator and writer Eiji Uehiro who gave us the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. It would probably be fine if he was like IT consultant James Martin who gave us the Martin School in the Social Sciences Division.
Unfortunately, the man behind Oxford’s new humanities space is more controversial. He is the CEO and founder of private equity group Blackstone, which was singled out by a UN Special Rapporteur as having created the global housing crisis. He described Obama’s proposals to make hedge fund managers pay more taxes as “like when Hitler invaded Poland”. Donald Trump considers him a close friend. He put his financial might behind rabid right-wingers who went on to refuse to certify the 2020 Election results.
And all this is before we consider the ethics of whether anyone should be as rich as Schwarzman is. His 40 billion dollars comes with a social, political, and (obviously) economic power that should really be the preserve of banks, charities, and government. Instead, he can wield such huge influence that the University of Oxford – whose previous plans for a humanities centre were a decade behind schedule – is left with little choice but to accept. The world’s number one ranked university in thrall to one man.
Schwarzman is not the only one. The Saïd Business School, Dickson Poon China Centre, Ertegun House – even the Ashmolean (Elias Ashmole) and the Radcliffe Camera (John Radcliffe) – all testify to the power of one individual, many of whom have attracted controversies. At least these donors are transparent. More opaque arrangements include the subtle hand of Elon Musk behind the now-defunct Future of Humanity Institute, that of Exxon Mobil in the Nuffield Department, and mining group Rio Tinto’s role in the Blavatnik Centre – yet another eponymous institute!
Some will argue that this criticism is highly impractical. After all, universities need funding. This is especially true of those like Oxford which belong to the global elite of institutions that do ground-breaking work every day. Nobody would begrudge Cancer Research UK helping fund new clinicians or even AstraZeneca in delivering the Covid-19 vaccine. Oxford cannot be picky with funding, the argument goes, in an age where government support waxes and wanes.
But surely we can do better. The University must be more than a collection of ever grander institutes massaging the egos of various (usually male) billionaires. The future of funding doesn’t mean cutting all ties with rich philanthropists – that isn’t possible. However, universities can at least be aware of the ethical and reputational risks they take when relying so obviously on individuals and their commercial ventures.
A better future would be one where Oxford drew more astutely on the wealth its colleges have in reserve. One where innovation was promoted by paying tutors a decent wage rather than launching more architectural vanity projects. Where the University worked in smaller collaborations with charities, other universities, and groups of benefactors. Where an incoming Labour government sees the value of Oxbridge to the British economy and keeps funding flows stable. So of course I’m excited about the Schwarzman Centre – but there is undoubtedly a future where Oxford can hold its head much higher.
The optics couldn’t have been worse. Seemingly drowned by the rain and drowned out by the New Labour anthem of 1997, Rishi Sunak finally answered the question – he finally set the date. In turn, he has united his MPs more effectively than at any point during his tenure in Number 10. They are almost universally asking: Why now, why today?
The shock of this announcement should not be overestimated. For a political class that has been gripped by this question for months, no one other than eight or so trusted advisors had any idea what was to come until Wednesday morning. That was when rumours started to build and by the time ministers had been summoned at 16:15, the world’s press were already reporting the date.
So, onto that question of why. It seems that Sunak and his team (particularly Deputy PM Oliver Dowden) believe that they do have a story to tell. The previously held consensus that something might come up to disrupt Labour’s vast 20-point polling lead before the autumn seems to have run out of road.
It is no coincidence that this announcement came the day that inflation numbers dropped to 2.3%, their lowest levels in two years. As of this month, the energy price cap is also starting to come down. Likewise, legal migration is falling with visa applications across key routes falling 25% from the start of the year. Most importantly perhaps, there is no longer any fiscal headroom for a potential pre-election tax cut come the autumn. On the surface then, Sunak might not be totally wrong. The real question is whether he, having just hit a personal low in favourability polling, is the person to tell that story.
In a similar vein, just a little digging into those numbers gives a much fuller picture of where the country is at. Economically, yesterday’s numbers were actually a disappointment to many economists as inflation fell slightly less than expected. Underlying numbers, not taking into account falls in energy prices, show that services inflation is still at 5.9%. By all accounts, this makes any June inflation rate cuts by the Bank of England unlikely. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt conceded himself yesterday on the Today Programme that British people felt “battered and bruised”.
Potentially worse for Sunak is that Thursday, the first day of campaigning, is set to be marked by figures on illegal migration. So far this year, small boat crossings in the Channel are up by nearly a quarter on last year and that is expected to get worse going into the summer. Even if you do believe that ‘stopping the boats’ is a viable policy on which to fight an election, it is another point on which Sunak is currently failing. If he wants to run this election on security, as he has intimated in recent days, his opponent simply isn’t as daunting as Jeremy Corbyn.
These signs point towards another line of reasoning from the Prime Minister. As opposed to waiting for things to get better, he has clearly made the calculation that they can only get worse.
To his credit, Sunak has made a somewhat bold decision and it would be foolish to claim at this point that any result was certain. There is almost no doubt that the current poll lead for Labour will narrow, possibly significantly come July. The challenge for Starmer to overcome the result of 2017 should not be underestimated. Labour still has policy to sort out, and there is little excitement so far from the electorate, despite its “First Steps” event last week.
Unfortunately for Sunak, though, if he had wanted to look bold and in control, his team let him down. From speaking in the briefing room inside Number 10 to the simple use of an umbrella, there were countless ways to avoid the catastrophic optics of his announcement on Wednesday afternoon. Instead, he stepped out to announce an election looking like a man already defeated, cutting and running.
The Conservative Party will tell you until they’re blue in the face that there is “no enthusiasm for Keir Starmer” and that he is “no Tony Blair”. That might be true – the Labour leader is polling nowhere near to his 1997 comparison. The reality, though, is that Starmer doesn’t need to beat Tony Blair: he needs to beat Rishi Sunak.
