Monday 13th October 2025
Blog Page 963

The Devil’s Advocate: hack! the herald angels sing

0

It is that time of year. The nights have drawn long. In the morning, the blades of grass are coated in the crystalline frost of the bleak midwinter. A crepuscular veil has been drawn across these Islands, covering us all in that frightful and yet so delightful weather of wintertime. But at the centre of this stygian season, is that day to which we all look forward to throughout the year. That holy and wholesome day. That day when hearts and minds are opened, when right triumphs over wrong, and when all mankind is overcome with love of neighbour. I’m very glad, therefore, that the joyous day has passed over us, and the Twelve Days are well into their stride, because it will take a damn good dollop of Christmas cheer to patch up the latest frosty fissure to open between the US and Russia. I speak of course about the alleged involvement of the Russian state in manipulating the outcome of the US presidential election. Uncle Sam must have been a terribly naughty boy this to deserve that lump of coal in his stocking…

On Friday 9 December it was announced that the United States’ intelligence agencies had uncovered proof of Russian involvement in the November election. Reports said this comprised of Russian hacks on entities and players key to the presidential race. The DNC, the Clinton Campaign, and a series of personal Gmail accounts were all noted as victims of these cyber-attacks. It is believed that the orders for these virtual incursions were issued by the leaders of the Russian Federation themselves. To what end? Why to influence the decision of the American public in electing their new President. Chilling news for a chilling season. Naturally, the Kremlin has denied all allegations. Those chaps are nothing if not consistent.

But there was fury, and fear too, in the US. So much so that the outgoing President felt the need to affirm the strength of the American democracy, and its durability against these cyber-assaults. However, I think, in listening to his comments, that his words belied a deep unease and an uncomfortable chagrin that the “sanctity” of US security had been violated. There was a palpable, and instinctual, sense of “how dare they!” in the response of Obama, the CIA, and many Americans to the news. This was not the seasonal surprise they were used to.

Nonetheless, I find the astonishment with which some have greeted this news to be indicative of the most infantile naivety. Indignation at the discovery is something I feel they are entirely justified in holding. But shock? Certainly not. For one thing, as President Obama himself pointed out, the media had made the whole sordid affair of Russian involvement in the US election one of the major points of contest during the race. Why, it might be asked, are we acting so stunned when confronted with old news? Might it not be a delayed adverse reaction to the victory of Putin’s pick: Donald Trump?

But more significantly, let’s consider the matter with some pragmatism. The fact is this: America served the Eastern Bear this sumptuous repast—sickly-sweet Clinton and sorely-sour Trump—on a silver platter. I mean, what on Earth did they expect Russia to do? This is a country against which the Obama Administration and the Clinton Campaign had been railing for years, carefully cultivating a frigid animosity towards it. A superpower, with the means and the motive; why would they not try to influence another country’s election? If they could achieve a result more favourable for themselves by the process of hacking, then why not do it? Prior to November, America’s divisionism saw it lose much of the dignity once paid to it the world over. Its mask of strength slipped from its face, and through the fractures of imperfect disunion one could see the underlying weaknesses. There’s only one way to treat weakness: exploit it. The Russians, masters of Realpolitik, saw an opportunity to do so this year, and by God they took it.

As I said, of course America is entitled to be angry at this shameful infringement of cyber sovereignty. But it is the shared, self-reflective anger which one feels when they goad a dog into biting them (except, in this case it was a bear… with rabies, and very sharp teeth). Speaking frankly, the affronted party ought to have realised by now the truth in the old adage: “It takes two to tango.” Clinton’s hawkish rhetoric toward the Russian state set the two on a collision course from day one. That Putin and his pawns might have acquired information and, with Teflon tongues, let it slip into the ears of those who would use it to promote Trump over Clinton might ignite rage. It cannot, however, reasonably arouse shock. To be quite honest, I fail to see why this matter is even news—there is nothing “new” about it. The whole incident is akin to a drunkard in a dodgy pub, slandering one of the less gentil patrons, and receiving a thorough thrashing because of it. We might not condone the response, but let’s be clear, we all saw it coming.

That being said, the discovery of Russian hacking should be a warning to all of us—and not just to our American cousins across the pond—that our world is one of nosey neighbours. Neighbours, who will seek to stir the pot, and prod their noses where they don’t belong. The recent “revelations” (though, as stipulated, I think this far too strong a word for them) are a wake-up call, an alarm which we have too often pressed “snooze” to. No more. Let this be a reminder that what ought to matter most to the state is its safety, its security—above all its sovereignty. In this world of conflict and competition, all countries, in some way or another, will jostle to defend their own and to impinge upon that of others. That’s why Putin’s influence on US politics, though disturbing, is not discombobulating. But perhaps there, I’m being too cynical. I mean, it’s not like the US has ever interfered in the politics of another country. Oh, wait…

Thatcher fought to protect her women-only college from admitting men

1

Margaret Thatcher vowed to “strenuously” resist measures forcing her former Oxford college, Somerville, from admitting men as fellows under European Commission (EC) equality legislation, newly released Downing Street files reveal.

Thatcher, who read Chemistry at Somerville between 1943 and 1947, sought to protect the rights of Oxford and Cambridge colleges to admit women only, saying to prevent them from doing so would “infringe, not enlarge liberties”.

The dispute, disclosed in Cabinet Office papers released by the National Archive at Kew on Friday, show the then prime minister was opposed to an “absurd” EC directive to overturn exemptions in the 1975 Equalities Act, which permitted women-only Oxbridge colleges to pursue positive discrimination.

Daphne Park, the principal of Somerville, informed Thatcher of opposition to the impending change, urging her to “safeguard the status quo” in a letter from 2 June 1986.

Daphne, a former MI6 agent, wrote: “I hold no brief for resisting change when the time is ripe but I hope the college will be able to choose its course when the right time comes rather than to have the decision made for us for reasons which are not germane to the issue.”

In notes at the top of the letter, Thatcher wrote: “It is absurd to try to prevent women’s colleges from continuing as women’s colleges with women fellows, it would infringe, not enlarge liberties”.

A No 10 memo suggests the Prime Minister was successful in receiving assurances from Jacques Delors, then president of the European Commission, that “common sense would prevail”, after Thatcher had raised the issue with him at a meeting. The memo reads: “It seemed to him one of these cases where community law and common sense were contradictory”.

On one note Thatcher wrote: “I take it that no decision has been taken about section 51. I should resist its repeal most strenuously. Please keep me informed. I will chair any (or every meeting) on this subject.”

In a further memo on 28 August 1987, the prime minister said she would “vigorously” support attempts to use legal powers to preserve the status of all-women colleges.

The changes would have affected the status of the four remaining all-women colleges—Somerville and St Hilda’s at Oxford and Newnham and Lucy Cavendish at Cambridge.

Somerville accepted men for the first time in 1994 and St Hilda’s, the last remaining single-sex college in Oxford, became mixed in 2008.

Oxford University has been contacted for comment.

2016: the year in food

1. Bye bye Bake Off

This season of the Great British Bake Off was full of highs and lows, as viewers were simultaneously confronted with an amazing cohort of bakers and also the bitter news that this would be the last season to air on the BBC. This was an occasion for national mourning as we all watched the tragedy unfold—first Mel and Sue left and then Mary and we all knew it was the end of an era. Let’s face it, Paul was always the worst person on the show and has let us all down by staying with this knock-off, under-baked version.

Some highlights from the season include the unbelievably relaxed Selasi, who not only refused to panic when his bakes looked bleak but also formed perhaps the cutest friendship of the show with Benjamina, and Val’s touching goodbye that perfectly summed up both the season and the series as a whole. Although some are still holding out hope for the Channel Four version, for most of us the only leftovers are the original series reruns, the Christmas specials and the sweet memories of six years of the best-tasting TV show in recent memory.

2. Wasabi launches in Oxford

A story that unsurprisingly did not travel beyond the city boundaries, but was probably our local food moment of the year. Expecting an uneventful launch for the latest addition to Oxford’s extensive selection of moderately upmarket lunch places, students were left amazed at Wasabi’s ingenious publicity drive. For two glorious lunchtimes between 12 and 1, everything—yes, EVERYTHING—was free. It didn’t make a difference whether you chose a seaweed salad or chicken katsu curry, you didn’t even have to bother getting your purse out.

Inevitably, word spread like wildfire on group chats, Twitter and JCR Facebook pages, and the queue became quite a social meeting point. Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end, and the news that Leon would only offer a measly 10 per cent student discount at their launch a few weeks later was greeted with great disappointment.

3. Veggie Pret stays open – for the conceivable future

Although perhaps not of as much interest to vegetarians outside London (apologies), it was announced in September that the pop-up Veggie Pret in Broadwick Street would stay open—for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, Pret’s vegetarian and vegan food in general improved across the board: a special mention must go to the vegan Christmas sandwich, which (whisper it) was much more flavoursome than the turkey one. Fingers crossed, Veggie Pret can go on to take over the country (and why not the world?) in 2017.

4. Food, Trump and Brexit

In a year of political convulsions, one unpredicted trend was the interaction between food and politics. Donald Trump’s son bizarrely compared Syrian refugees to Skittles sweets on Twitter; his father attempted to redeem previously offensive comments about Hispanic people by taking a selfie with a taco bowl. When Hillary Clinton revealed in an interview that she always carries hot sauce around with her, many drew parallels with a line in Beyoncé’s hit song ‘Formation’—#HotSauceBagSwag duly became a trend.

Meanwhile, the fallout to the second worst political event of 2016 featured a bitter dispute between Unilever and Tesco over the pricing of many food items. Unilever blamed their 10% price rise on the fall in sterling’s value after the vote for Brexit, while MPs accused the company of exploiting the referendum result. Regardless, ‘Marmitegate’ showed us the debate between ‘Bremainers’ and ‘Brexiters’ was far from over.

5. Shortages of ‘essential’ food items

Like many, we found out about the Great Avocado Shortage 2016 through memes and clickbait being shared on Facebook. Fortunately, it soon emerged that the problem was most acute in the USA, Australia and New Zealand, where signs informed the public that “No Cash or Avocados” were kept on shop premises for security reasons. A much more sobering issue for Britons was the Great Biscuit Shortage, caused by damage to the McVitie’s factory in the Cumbria floods. Custard creams, water biscuits, ginger nuts and, devastatingly, bourbons were all in short supply. By the end of 2016, however, many looked back in nostalgia to the biscuit shortage, which seemed reminiscent of a happier, more innocent time.

2016 is dead, long live 2017?

0

It seems terribly poignant that George Michael should die on Christmas Day, yet another in an astonishingly large cohort of public figures who have lost their lives in 2016. David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Sir Terry Wogan, Prince, Muhammad Ali, Leonard Cohen, A.A. Gill, Carrie Fisher: these are just a handful of the celebrities who have died over the past twelve months, and, whilst every year is marred by tragedy, 2016 has been particularly unrelenting.  For millennials at least, events around the world have made this one of the most unpredictable and depressing years in living memory. On reflection, it is no surprise that Merriam-Webster selected ‘surreal’ as its word of the year. Defined as ‘marked by the intense irrational reality of a dream’, this adjective perfectly encapsulates the last twelve months.

The mind alights upon Brexit and the election of Trump as the most seismic events in western politics this year, and there are unmistakeable similarities between the two. Both were made possible by vast swathes of aggrieved voters who felt impoverished by globalisation and alienated by a pro-immigration liberal elite. Both thrust us into political terra incognita, and, for those of us who voted to remain and saw Clinton as by far the lesser of two evils, this was immensely unsettling. It is not hard to see why Brexiteers voted as they did, but that does not mitigate the dismal reality that our country has been plunged into confusion and riven by inter-generational and regional disagreements. There is, however, at least some cause for optimism. Our economy, for instance, has proved to be more resilient than anticipated, with the Bank of England even revising its economic growth forecast for 2017 from 0.8 to 1.4 per cent.

Brexit was eclipsed by events across the Atlantic that are far harder to comprehend. Trump, the demagogue, with his charismatic authority and wild promises, has quickened the pulse of an angry nativism coursing through the veins of the American body politic. The prospect of his inauguration next month is horrifying. His election campaign made it clear that he has no qualms about expelling immigrants with abandon, jeopardising NATO, opposing multilateral trade deals and embracing economic nationalism, tearing up Obamacare, relaxing gun restrictions, bolstering the powers of the police, and enlarging America’s nuclear capabilities. It is a profoundly worrying departure from the Obama Administration, and one that has exposed the fragility of liberalism in the most extreme manner.

Brexit and Trump’s election have dominated western political discourse, but these turbulent twelve months have also witnessed other significant developments. Here in Britain, the resignation of David Cameron was followed by a theatrical Conservative leadership contest, during which the dastardly Michael Gove impaled himself on the spike of his ambition whilst stabbing Boris Johnson in the back. It was the quietly competent Theresa May, untainted by any major involvement in the Brexit debate, who won the day and became Britain’s second female Prime Minister. Change was not so decisive on the opposite side of the Commons, however, for the abortive Labour coup served only to increase Corbyn’s mandate as Labour leader. Whether this is a death knell for the Labour Party as we know it is uncertain, but with the purple of UKIP seeping into the fabric of many Labour constituencies, the chances of a 2020 victory are looking increasingly slim. 2016 should be a wake-up call for the left, demonstrating that it must work out how to remain electorally relevant and address voters’ concerns about issues such as immigration, labour relations and globalisation.

On the international stage, the Syrian civil war has raged on. It is against this backdrop that Turkey and Russia have begun to co-operate in pursuit of their policy goals in the war-ravaged country. Ironically, the recent assassination of the Russian ambassador to Ankara attests to the closeness of this relationship, for this murder seems to have united, rather than divided, the two countries. Alongside the Syrian civil war and Turkey’s drift away from the West, the election of Trump, the increasing power of China and Russia, and the troubles of the EU—from Brexit to the rise of far-right populist parties—have also loomed large, and 2016 has left us with the impression that the global balance of power is undergoing a dramatic reconfiguration.

The howl of the lone wolf terrorist was heard with hideous frequency during 2016, and these attacks have been one of the year’s defining features. The Brussels bombings, the Orlando nightclub shooting and the lorry attacks in Nice and Berlin have been the four most prominent in the West. Attacks perpetrated or inspired by ISIS have claimed hundreds more lives in the Middle East, whilst there has been further violence in the West on a smaller scale— from the French priest whose throat was slit in a church in Normandy to the Syrian refugee who blew himself up near a music festival in Ansbach. This was the year when our public spaces began no longer to feel safe, when the values of our countries were thrown into doubt, and when, perhaps, the danger arose of our becoming inured to this sort of terrorism. Each new attack seemed to be greeted with a sense of inevitability—it was no longer surprising when a terrorist struck. In these lone wolves, moreover, ISIS has found a devastatingly potent weapon. Whilst the physical manifestation of the terror organisation may be defeated on the battlefield, its spirit and insidious propaganda has the potential to inspire attackers worldwide and indefinitely.

2016 has upended the post-Cold War order and witnessed unprecedented threats within our borders. From the numerous terrorist attacks to Brexit and the election of Trump, we have seen western liberal democracies shaken to their core and enter a nebulous 2017 reflecting on a year when hope was dimmed.

Cocaine’s fundamental flaw

0

Oxford is a world-renowned institute for education. Hand-in-hand with this reputation is the sort you see manifested in things such as ‘The Riot Club’: dinner parties and an air of general debauchery. While, as recent articles have shown us, the Bullingdon Club has lost its spark, some Oxford students feel the need to maintain a party lifestyle. If you’ve ever dived into the sweaty depths of Cellar or The Bullingdon this will be a familiar sight. Of course there is no harm in a bit of fun, but it is easy to forget that sometimes this ‘harmless fun’ can be at the expense of other people.

It cannot be denied that people take drugs. According to government statistics for last year, Cannabis remains the most popular recreational drug, with 29 per cent of 16 to 59 year olds reporting to have used it in their lifetime. More controversially, cocaine use has increased in popularity. Some have linked this to the introduction of a two-tier market, making a lower quality product available to more people. Thus, the drug is no longer a luxury only the wealthy can afford. Figures for 2013/14 showed that around 1 in 24 of people between 15 and 34 in the UK admitted to taking the drug in the last year.

Although it still slips into headlines for celebrity dabbling in the drug, it has become much more mainstream. As Dominic Streatfeild, author of Cocaine: An Unauthorised Biography said in an article in 2015 “The availability has gone up in the last 20 years while the quality has gone down, so it certainly should have become less desirable, but I suspect it hasn’t because of the way it’s reported on in the media”. While the glamour it used to hold in the public eye is definitely slipping away, cocaine’s popularity hasn’t.

Whilst scrolling through the endless depths of Facebook recently, the satirical headline from Wonderground Music, ‘Vegan horrified to discover fiver he uses to snort child slave farmed coke contains animal fats’ caught my attention. This article picks up on a double standard I can’t say I haven’t noticed. There’s a certain breed of millennial who will recycle, buy The Big Issue, drink fair-trade coffee, and partake in social media activism, yet conveniently forgets that cocaine is an unethical drug. This could perhaps be forgiven if this information was difficult to come by, but there’s no shortage on comment on cocaine and its impact in the media. The topic is frequently covered by Vice and other media outlets popular within the millennial demographic. It seems as if students are willingly turning a blind eye to the reality of their lifestyle choices.

With other drugs one can be assured of somewhat of a grey area—there’s a good chance that the cannabis in a joint was grown in a tent in someone’s spare room, and MDMA is mostly produced in the Netherlands. The dubious supply chain for cocaine, however, makes it near-impossible to come across an ethically produced batch.

Columbia was once a hotspot for cocaine production, supplying up to 80 per cent of supply, and now it is Peru. Both countries are located in the Amazon rainforest, a perfect location for the growth and harvesting of the most important ingredient in Cocaine: the coca leaf. It’s pretty natural and harmless at this stage, but in order to extract the psychoactive alkaloid a rather pollutive process takes place. The final product contains a whole host of toxic chemicals, including hydrochloric acid. According to National Geographic, 14,800 tonnes of chemical waste goes in to the Amazon River basin from cocaine production process each year.

The human side of the process should not be ignored either. Reports have linked 34 per cent of murders in Mexico from 2007 to 2014 to drug cartels with other estimates going up to as high as 55 per cent. Tony Saggers, head of the NCA’s Drugs Threat division, has argued that “buying cocaine funds the exploitation of impoverished people, destroys and pollutes large areas of rainforest, forces people from their homes so coca can be grown on their land, and results in the murder of police officers and others who stand in the way of powerful crime groups.”

Of course, if drugs were legal, their production could be regulated. Historically, drug prohibition policies are unsuccessful in reducing usage. Drug users and small dealers end up in over-crowded prisons whilst those at the top usually escape unscathed. But that’s another article, and it doesn’t look like it will happen any time soon. So for the time being avoiding buying cocaine and funding a corrupt industry would be a pretty decent thing to do.

People still take cocaine despite knowing much of what is outlined here. This is one of the reasons drug culture is so interesting. Why do people still consume narcotics on a regular basis? Most obviously, they make you feel pretty nice. Cocaine use comes with a feeling of euphoria, self-confidence and sociability. Further to this, many users report feeling perked up after drinking. So, if one was out drinking all night, before coming home to write an essay, it’s not the most illogical thing to do. But one could also make a more sustainable choice and take a pro-plus (it’s less effective, but it is also cheaper).

All this being said, who doesn’t partake in a bit of doublethink on a daily basis? Few of us are guilt-free from such behaviour (even if we’re not indulging in illegal drugs).  Most consumer products aren’t particularly ethical, unless bought from specialist lines such as The Body Shop or the H&M ethical line. Similar to cocaine, avocados are rising in popularity, and moreover are not exactly great for both fair and sustainable trade. Not only are they one of the most water-guzzling crops, but their farming is also leading to deforestation of mature pine forests. We’re all guilty of being hypocrites, even those of us who pride ourselves on how much we care about the lives of others.

Needless to say, if this applies to you perhaps you should consider a new year’s resolution. I think it’s a pretty clear why more students should be keeping their noses clean.

The Rise of Evil: a user’s guide

0

As you probably know, overthrowing a democracy is no easy task. If it were easy, everyone would do it. Luckily for you, this handy guide is here to help you go from zero to self-proclaimed national hero with minimal fuss. Succeed in your tyrannical master plan and you’ll be joining the hallowed ranks of Franco and Mugabe. Succeed a few more times and you might even catch up with the CIA.

Preliminaries:

Before we begin, let’s make sure you’re the right sort of complete bastard for the job. First, it’s obviously worth making 100 per cent sure that you have absolutely no morals—these will almost certainly hinder your unerring persecution of minorities. If you care about people who aren’t affluent white heterosexual males, you’re probably on the wrong track. Secondly, you’ll want to become wildly rich. Don’t be fooled by the American Dream—honest work won’t bring home the kind of cash you need. Instead, experiment with inheriting $15m dollars from your father. Without your millions, how are you going to force your bigoted views upon the electorate?

Step One: Picking your democracy

It’s worth pointing out that not all democracies are created equal. Some countries inconveniently make hostile takeovers difficult by nurturing a politically-engaged electorate and encouraging national debate. High voter turnout and consistent economic success are a definite no-no, so the likes of Scandinavia and Australia are off the cards.

Make sure the country you pick has some really obscure electoral system too—losing the popular vote should never stand in the way of your path to power! 

Step Two: Dream up a hostile threat

Almost any minority will do. A liberal sprinkling of hate speech, incitement, and thuggery should provoke national hysteria and distrust. Why not pick Islam as a starting point? You can aggressively spin Europe’s national tragedies into narrow-minded political point-scoring in fewer than 140 characters!

Step Three: Pick your voters

People are naturally fickle and untrustworthy. They also have a nasty habit of voting against tyranny. It’s best to nip this unruly tendency in the bud by having only some parts of your country vote. Look to North Carolina as a beacon of progressive tyranny in this respect—they’re so good at blocking African-American voters that it’s literally illegal!

Step Four: Think up a nifty slogan

What else will the Mexicans chant when you put them to work in your sweatshops?

Step Five: Make it all about you

McFly said it best: “It’s all about you, baby”. The electorate never really wanted to hear any of your social, economic or foreign policies, even if you did happen to have any. Rather, tell the impoverished masses about your life of luxury. You drive fast cars, your wife is pretty hot, you’ve never experienced institutionalised discrimination—you live the life!

Finishing touches:

You’re almost there. Your chosen nation is impoverished and despairing under your tyrannical yoke, but you’re still not quite the top dog. It’s time to tell everyone you delivered on your wildly catchy and not-at-all-clichéd-or-pseudo-racist slogan. Let the masses know you’ve, say, Made America Great Again.

Head to Head: Kelechi Iheanacho vs Marcus Rashford

0

Rivalries are one of the great hallmarks of sport. They are essential to maintaining competition and interest. The Premier League has never lacked this: Keane and Viera; Wenger and Mourinho; Terry and Bridge. In particular, the Manchester derby always brings something special to British football. Since last season, it brings a burst of passion in two very special young players: Marcus Rashford and Kelechi Iheanacho. But who is the better player? Laolu Ayeko and Sam Pace share their opinion in the first edition of ‘Head to Head’.

Laolu Ayeko on Kelechi Iheanacho

Let’s be real here, there is only one winner in this contest, and he wears blue.

Iheanacho first burst into the scene with awe-inspiring performances in the 2013 U17 world cup, the like of which hadn’t been seen since John Obi Mikel and Lionel Messi participated in the tournament in 2005. He not only spearheaded a Nigerian win of the tournament, but also managed to secure the best player award for the competition. During this time, Rashford was struggling to break into an England youth side that did not even qualify for the U17 World Cup. In defence of Rashford, his international career has since improved, making six appearances for the senior team and even scoring on his debut. Iheanacho only has four times as many goals in one more appearance.

Yet Kelechi has made his real mark in the Premier League. City manager Pep Guardiola said himself at the start of the season, “Kelechi is a natural goalscorer. I knew about him before, but I’ve been really impressed with him since I arrived. I like his personality, his attitude, his ability—we hope to help him reach the highest level and to realise his full potential.”

Iheanacho seems to have a sixth sense at times, always in the right place at the right time. Admittedly, Rashford has the higher goals to appearances ratio out of the two with 0.32, compared to Iheanacho’s 0.3, but this statistic is incredibly misleading as it only takes Kelechi an average of 141 minutes on the pitch per goal, whereas it takes Rashford 204.

If you think Iheanacho’s contributions to City’s team have ended at goals, you are mistaken. Iheanacho’s confidence and ability to take players on greatly contributes to the potency of City’s attack, attributes severely lacked by Rashford. When comparing their assist tallies in their club career, it’s not even close. Iheanacho has assisted three goals in his career and Rashford is yet to clock one assist.

Iheanacho’s goals last season often came at crucial times for City. He was personally responsible for five of City’s points last season, without which they would have finished finished seventh in the league instead of fourth, outside of the Champions League qualification spots.

If you weren’t already convinced, I’ll finish with this: Iheanacho, unlike Rashford, is a member of the prestigious list of players almost signed by Arsenal boss and legendary developer of talent Arsène Wenger, along with Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Didier Drogba. His parents obviously knew he was destined to be special—they gave him the middle name Promise.

Sam Pace on Marcus Rashford

While Iheanacho is solely used in the central striking role, Rashford has often been forced to ply his trade out wide to enable other offensive talents to fit in alongside him. Even with this, Rashford manages a far better goal to game ratio than Iheanacho in the Premier League. Rashford has scored eight goals in 25 games, giving him a goal to game ratio of 0.320. On the other hand, Iheanacho has only managed three goals more in twelve more games, giving him a goal to game ratio of 0.297.

Iheanacho is yet to fully establish himself in the Manchester City team, scoring very well from the bench in sporadic substitute appearances, or starting when Aguero’s discipline so frequently lets him down. On the other hand, Rashford scored on his European debut and then twice in his first Premier League appearance against Arsenal to win the game of Manchester United. He also scored the winner in the Manchester derby, showing him to be a big game player. 

My sentiment for Rashford’s superiority is echoed by the highly reputable The Sun Football journalist, Andrew Richardson, who says, “It’s a close call between Marcus Rashford and Kelechi Iheanacho for me—but the United man just edges it. He is an explosive player who can change games. Despite the Red Devils’ obvious struggles, he has kept up his form and hit important goals. Difficult to recall a bad performance.”

It is undeniable that Iheanacho is an exciting talent, but he is one of many in the Premier League, with the likes of Alex Iwobi and Jordan Pickford, showing similar levels of, if not greater, promise. Rashford has shown his potential to transform his team’s fortunes, evidenced by his cameo performances for England during his young, but blossoming, international career.

What’s more, it could be argued that Iheanacho has only scored frequently at such a young age due to the creative talents of Silva, De Bruyne and Sterling. The dire creative ability of a drab Manchester United team, on the other hand, has done nothing to help Rashford, who has had to show great talent at such a young age to be able to succeed.

Why Theresa May should call an election in 2017

0

Last term I wrote an article saying that I didn’t think it would be wise for Theresa May to call a General Election in early 2017. After recent by-elections, it’s clear that the Liberal Democrats only pose a limited threat to the Conservatives in heavily Remain-voting parts of the country like Richmond Park. Theresa May has an opportunity to increase her dwindling Commons majority—I for one believe she should seize it.

However, the Richmond Park by-election shouldn’t spook the Prime Minister. Zac Goldsmith fought and lost the contest as an independent, without the backing of CCHQ or the national Conservative Party. Theresa May should not be deterred from striking while the iron is hot, so to speak, and taking advantage of her highly favourable poll ratings and call an early election. Even in staunchly Remain Richmond, the Liberal Democrats could only just snatch a victory, despite their opponent running with no party label whatsoever.

What these by-elections show cumulatively is that the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn continues to fall away. In Richmond Park the party did so badly that it lost its deposit (due to getting less than 5% of the vote). Labour haven’t lost their deposit in a London by-election since 1909. The Labour Party tumbled away in Witney, Richmond Park and, most recently, Sleaford & North Hykeham. The Conservatives should capitalise on the weakness of the opposition and cement their position nationally.

Clearly one cannot hold opinion polls in too high esteem after the debacles of the 2015 General Election and Brexit. However, even if the polls are off by a small amount, the Conservatives still have towering leads nationally. What the polls show is UKIP voters switching to the Conservatives and Labour haemorrhaging votes to the Liberal Democrats. This would be more evidence of what’s been happening in recent parliamentary by-elections. The Conservatives also appear to be making historic inroads in Scotland, a hitherto barren region for them. This is no small part down to Ruth Davidson’s efforts to protect the Union and defend the interests of the majority, who voted emphatically against separation in 2014. The Conservatives could expect to make clear advances in this part of the United Kingdom in a General Election.

The polls have given the Conservatives leads of up to 18%. UKIP’s new leader continues to preside over a party whose votes are falling away. Given that UKIP’s only real policy is leaving the European Union, it’s no surprise that many UKIP voters are returning to the Conservative Party under a more socially conservative leader. This would explain why the Conservatives are currently on 42% and hover around that figure. Labour, by contrast, are stagnating as their vote share drops to around 25%, their lowest level since 2009. It’s highly likely that the Conservatives would have a majority of over 100 if Theresa May went to the country in early 2017 rather than waiting until 2020. If not, the Labour Party may ditch Jeremy Corbyn and install a more palatable leader.

Finally, it is becoming increasingly clear that Brexit negotiations may be more complex and quarrelsome than first thought. The Prime Minister should therefore contemplate with real equanimity the prospect of an early General Election to extend the Conservatives’ mandate and acquire one of her own. Gordon Brown came to power in similar circumstances to Theresa May (due to an unopposed coronation as opposed to an internal party election). Theresa May would be well advised to extend the Conservative Party’s mandate to 2022 so that Brexit negotiations do not have to be rushed unnecessarily.

Alumni philanthropy gap between UK and US universities “narrowing”

0

The proportion of UK and US alumni who have made a financial donation to their university is “narrowing”, according to a recent study.

In a report by the British market research agency Red Brick Research, has shown that a quarter of UK alumni under 30 have donated to their university.

The survey, which had a sample size of over 1,000 alumni from both countries, uncovered a generational gap in the willingness of alumni to donate. While there was a 21 percentage point difference in the proportion of British and American 51-60 year-olds who had donated to their alma mater, there was only a six percentage point difference in the proportion in 22-30 year-old alumni.

Oxford University has received increasing amounts from alumni philanthropy in recent years. In 2008, it launched Oxford Thinking: The Campaign for the University of Oxford, with the goal of raising £1.2 billion “to transform the collegiate University for many generations to come.” The University met the target in 2012 and a new goal of £3 billion was set, with £2 billion reached in May 2015.

Gifts from alumni to the University have included £4 million from Adrian Beecroft to construct the Beecroft Building in the Department of Physics, over £10 million in donations to support the university’s the Weidenfeld and Hoffmann Scholarship Programme, and Dickson Poon’s donation of £10 million towards the Dickson Poon University of Oxford China Centre Building. Many alumni gifts to scholarship funds have been matched by the University.

The study also revealed that 25 per cent of UK alumni aged between 22 and 30 had made a donation at least once, compared with 31 per cent of those in the same age bracket in the US. Meanwhile, just 3 per cent of 51-60 year-olds in the UK reported having donated, compared with 24 per cent in the US.

Red Brick Research told the Times Higher Education that the narrowing gap suggests the UK is having “some recent success in adopting a more US-style approach [to philanthropy].

“This may be indicative of a change of attitude in recent years with real efforts made by many universities to invest in alumni departments, to improve contact databases and to try to engage alumni at the point of graduation.”

The group added that more British students are finishing university “with a good understanding of their alumni network and its value.”

Overall, however, American alumni are still far more likely to donate to their alma mater. Less than a third of UK respondents said that they have donated or would consider donating to their university, compared with 54 per cent of US respondents.

OUSU and the University of Oxford have been contacted for comment.

Labour has a long way to go, but it is far from disconnected from reality

0

Only those in the deepest clutches of political denial would disagree with the view that the Labour Party is in trouble. The fundamental threat to the Labour Party’s electoral challenge has reached such an extent that even President Obama has decided to weigh in on the ongoing debate, describing the party under Corbyn as “disintegrating” and losing any place in “fact and reality”.

While I am by no means an uncritical devotee of Jeremy Corbyn, however, I must take issue with this diagnosis. The new SDP-style split first seen as an inevitability for the last fifteen months of Corbyn’s leadership has not materialised, the rebels on the backbenches have fallen largely silent, and while there remains a huge electoral mountain to climb, in numerous policy areas, Labour has been taking the right steps to diagnosing the problems at the heart of British society, and finding effective solutions for them.

The key voters that Labour needs to win over—the middle class small business owners of Middle England, and the white working classes of the post-industrial Northern heartlands—may appear miles apart, but in so many ways they share a common identity as victims of the globalised economy. The white working classes have seen their traditional industries and communities torn apart and left behind, forced into unfulfilling work in precarious zero-hour contracts and service sector jobs.

Middle class small business owners have also felt the immense squeeze from the new globalised economy, with many dreams of start-up enterprises never getting off the ground because of it. For both groups, Labour can be their champions, and already the party is taking steps in the right direction to meet their needs, and to provide answers for their concerns, something the Tories are consistently failing to do.

As socialists, Labour must never abandon their commitment to the empowerment of the working class, and a commitment to worker’s representation on company boards would be a huge, revolutionary step to ensure this. Vote Leave’s slogan of “Take Back Control” is already beginning to be reclaimed by the left and used to campaign for the rights of workers.

But the aim of socialism is not just an egalitarian society free from exploitation, but also free from the restrictions that prevent people fulfilling their full potential. Labour is re-establishing its position as the champion of small business owners and “aspirational” classes just as much as the traditional, working class voters. A national investment bank, a higher minimum wage and moves towards a universal basic income, as mooted by John McDonnell and Jonathan Reynolds, are huge steps in the right direction in facilitating the aspirations of small business owners, freeing them from the limitations of globalised capital and big business competition, allowing the people that truly power our economy to get the help they need.

The immensely positive effects of a simplified and streamlined system—cutting back the horrendous bureaucracy of the welfare state—through UBI would also of course to do immense good for the worst off in our society, as well as calm the fears of fiscally conservative voters, fearful of welfare overspending. Labour has an immense opportunity with these policies, presented as the effective kickstarter policies for the economy in a post-Brexit Britain, utilising the full potential of British workers and business owners, to seize the economic narrative, and win the support of key voting demographics.

In social terms, the party’s working-class heartlands are deeply traditional and communitarian, with recent reports detailing the huge levels of cultural divide in some of the country’s most diverse areas. Here, moves towards an emphasis on fair movement of labour and an effective fund for areas most effected by immigration has also done much to win back the social narrative, at the moment dominated by right-wing populism. This is not an abandonment of Labour’s social liberalism, but rather putting into more effective practice the core beliefs in community and collectivism.

Things are certainly not perfect. There are vocal and extreme elements on both the left and right of the party in this debate on social media, and both crucially have failed to come anywhere near a sensible or credible solution. Neither ‘The Red Flag’ nor D:Ream are going to win back the voters of Middle England or the post-industrial northern heartlands left behind by three decades of neoliberalism. But these remain a minority view.

But the truth is, Obama is wrong on this. Labour is more in touch with the realities of the economic and social situation that any other party, but it must do more to re-establish its connection to the electorate, to speak in their terms and to gain their trust.

Fundamentally, Labour wins when they can strike the difficult balance between being true to themselves, and appealing effectively to the electorate. It is beautifully simple and often frustratingly difficult in equal measure. Labour is connected to reality, to the fundamental struggles of everyday life in Britain. But what it needs to do now, is connect to the electorate.