Thursday 17th July 2025
Blog Page 967

If…everything was determined by referenda

Daniel Curtis
-
0
If…everything was determined by referenda

To tell you the truth, I don’t relish the idea of McDonald’s sponsoring referenda. First, it would greatly increase voter turnout. Recent polls suggested that turnout could increase from the standard four per cent to anywhere between fifteen to twenty per cent. It turns out that the draw of a free SuperMac will indeed have a marked impact, given that every voter got one free with their vote.

Of course, something had to be done. This four per cent average is the lowest in all of my five decades of counting experience (and my two decades of voting experience) before that. After all, four per cent was, what, four million votes? Ideally you would want a voter turnout of around sixty per cent, but counting up around fifty million votes was not a particularly attractive prospect for Britain’s few remaining vote counters. That the state employed us was initially a problematic concept, given that the demonstrations about possible vote rigging or misinformation spread away from the His Majesty’s Virtual Reality People’s Parliament (or HMVRPP for ‘short’) and onto the streets. For everyone watching the voting process or the news through their Headbook headset, I understand that to have demonstrations on the street is a shocking concept, but when I was a child, street demonstrations were regular, if not common. As a result, you can imagine just how panicked Government got about it.

At any rate, all the controversy blew away to such an extent where the voters went with it. But the referenda didn’t blow away—they kept coming with alarming rigour and frequency. I only finished my last count yesterday, but I expect to be back in the office tomorrow to count anew. I think that tomorrow’s referendum concerns legislation about waste management, or something. I forget. Maybe that was last week’s. Tomorrow’s could be the one about public listening of music, or about curfews. I forget.

I have been forgetting a lot recently, actually. I should probably retire, but apparently I’m “too valuable” to be let go. Apparently it’s rare to find someone so politically aware in someone so “experienced”. Ha! If they only had the nerve to tell me that my age makes me valuable, derived as I am from a time where they held elections, not just referenda. I do still remember General Elections. How quaint they seem now. It did always strike me as odd that someone would be voted in only for ten years of complaint during their party’s term.

Things are much simpler now since the dissolution of the European Union and the establishment of State Referenda. It certainly keeps the country’s bureaucracy ticking. In fact, we depend on them. I can’t imagine how The British Kingdom could claim to be democratic without referenda. Scotland, since leaving us, have no referenda at all—all their claims of financial security and social harmony must be a lot of hot air. No-one really knows what goes on over The Wall of Unity, of course. Ever since they voted leave in their fifth Independence referendum (the final one that they’d ever have) relations have been frosty. Surely they’re not serious about how good representative democracy is. It’s all just lies from their biased media.

Speaking of the media, I think it’s really disappointing that more isn’t done to shut up the young idiots who set up their own VR channels to pretend to be all counter-culture and unique, complaining about their ‘civil liberties’ and their ‘rights’. I never had their cheek when I was their age: I never demonstrated against welfare cuts, or the so-called “erosion” of democratic processes, and look where it got me! I have a hefty wage, job security, and a nice state exception from ever having to vote. In fact, McDonald’s sponsorship of referenda voting will do my chances of retirement a world of good: with more voters, they’ll have to employ more counters which will mean I can train up some new recruits, specifically chosen for their political impartiality—or apathy, it matters little—and then retire with cake, celebrations and a knighthood. Maybe they’ll even get me a gift of a new VR headset to live my soaps with. My old headset’s 10K display is so dated now.

Actually, come to think of it, yes, this sponsorship is excellent news. I can’t wait to see all the happy voters leave the polling station with their SuperMac in hand. I still think that voting should all be done over VR, but the traditionalism of a personal vote is quaint and reassuring, in the same way I was delighted to see all referenda about the deposition of the monarchy resoundingly voted down.

Of course, I do sometimes feel a pang of guilt about spoiling all those republican votes, but I feel that, in my line of work, sometimes the most important civil servant is the one who dots the is and crosses the ts—even if the letters themselves occasionally have to be added in. People like me, who loyally serve the country, are really key for social stability. These people who actually vote are idiots: they don’t understand their vote, and any cry they make of ‘democracy’ deserves to be ignored. Really, by being foolish enough to vote, they’re just part of the process themselves.

Profile: Nicky Morgan

Theo Davies-Lewis
-
0
Profile: Nicky Morgan

Nicky Morgan has had a rollercoaster year. In January, she was the unshakeable Education
Secretary planning a major overhaul of the education system. Her plans to turn all schools in England into academies have since fallen through.

She was asked to leave her post and the government by fellow alumna of St Hugh’s, Prime Minister Theresa May. The MP for Loughborough, who was at once seen as a potential future leader of the Conservative party, now finds herself on the periphery of of British politics.

She chuckles, “It’s ironic. Two women in the Cabinet who are both graduates of St. Hugh’s
College—one is Prime Minister and the other has returned to the backbenches.”

I do not expect her warmth and honesty, and she seems far more comfortable discussing
the difficult issues—like her “sacking” from the Cabinet or the government’s plans on grammar schools—than I had imagined. She is immediately keen to discuss Brexit. I ask her if she thinks young people in particular will feel the impact of the decision.

She asserts, “I certainly think there’s still a danger of young people being hit. What I was
referring to during the campaign was how many recruiters and employers would be reluctant to take more people on until they know how Brexit was going to work out.”

She discusses how the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement may clarify the issue of Brexit for
both her and the public, but adds, rather reluctantly, “You know, I think the honest truth is that none of us know how it’s going to happen.”

She does not just associate Brexit with doom and gloom, however, adding optimistically, “Ultimately, we are a great country—innovative, entrepreneurial—and we will recover.”

In light of the US election, I wonder like many commentators whether there is a comparison to be made between the referendum vote and Trump’s campaign.

She states firmly, “There are parallels. But we can’t take the comparisons too far. There is no doubt that there are many people who have been challenged by the changing world. In the Brexit campaign it was all about taking control back—I wasn’t entirely sure what that “back” meant. In the US election, it’s been about “Making America Great Again”—but many of us would argue that America is a successful and powerful country already.”

However, the former Education Secretary doesn’t shy away from the fact that politicians such as herself have to maintain trust with the electorate.

She explains, “We have to be very clear that some politicians have over-promised and under-delivered and sometimes we’ve said to people there are complex problems that can
be solved with simple solutions. I’m not sure we’ve been completely straight with people
about the complexities of what we’re doing.”

As Education Secretary, Morgan met thousands of young people across the UK. I suggest to her that the divisive nature of the EU referendum and the US election put young people off politics altogether.

She disagrees, “It’s really engaging young people—it’s not always positive—but it’s really
got young people talking about politics, talking about the US election and talking about the referendum in a way that I haven’t seen in quite a long time.”

Having been removed from the government so abruptly, her plans left unfinished, I wonder if Morgan regrets any particular point of her time as Secretary. She immediately raises one issue that she focused on during her time in office: the funding of secondary schools.
She says, “One of the things that needs to be set out is the funding of our schools. We
have 152 local funding formulae across the country, and that means that some schools are receiving a lot more funding per pupil than others, while we are asking all of them to do the same.”

I can sense the frustration building as she speaks. After all, she launched a national fair funding formula for schools only for May to say, in Morgan’s own words, “Thank you, but no thank you”. Her disappointment is visible. She adds, “I regret we didn’t get to publish the second part of that consultation and also I would have liked more time to put in place
bits of my white paper on education, particularly focusing on those areas where educational
underperformance is entrenched; and the way young people are just not getting the
best start in life which we as a country owe them.”

Discussing these mainstream subjects are interesting. Yet, Morgan’s passion, education,
is something that I want to explore further. It is evident that she has strong views on the grammar schools policy developed by Theresa May. I ask whether she opposes the reforms.
“Well”, she says, almost as if she is restraining herself, “It is currently constituted in the
consultation—yes, absolutely.” Morgan continues clearly and articulately, “We need to build a strong and consistent education system across the country. And my concern is, I know what departments and big organisations are like, if you have a clear policy direction and throw another policy development in and change direction, the people focus on the new, and don’t deal with what I think is the entrenched underperformance in certain parts of the country…that’s what needs to be focused on.”

Nicky Morgan appears to me to be an efficient, organised and well-prepared politician.
Having joined the Conservative Party at the age of 16, it comes as little surprise that she has “always” been interested in politics.

She played an active role on the Oxford politics scene whilst at university, standing twice for President of OUCA. She lost to fellow Tory, Daniel Hannan MEP, on the second attempt.
Yet, she isn’t the typical Oxford student hack. I was involved in OUCA; but for me the Oxford Union was the big thing. It was nonpartisan—certainly when I was here. but the debating, the ability to meet people—that broadening of horizons that actually says: yes, you can compete on a stage with lots of other people.”

Typically, she then adds that many of her fellow students “are now involved in politics on the national stage.” It is unsurprising that so many of her peers have ended up working in the same circles. It gets me wondering how many of the people I come to know during my time here will appear on the front pages of newspapers in ten years or more.

As we draw to the end of our time together, I feel that Oxford had a profound impact on
this MP, who is still hungry to make a difference.

When I ask her what the future holds, Morgan doesn’t give much away, smiling and saying “One of the things with a political career is that nobody knows what’s around the corner.”

Sci-fi review: Arrival

Jonnie Barrow
-
0
Sci-fi review: Arrival

Attempting to talk about this film without speaking entirely in superlatives is pretty tricky. Suffice it to say that Arrival is, right now, the best film of the year—and given that the year is nearly over, that’s high praise indeed.

The story follows Amy Adams as Louise Banks, a doctor of linguistics who is drafted by the army to help humans communicate with alien crafts which have arrived on Earth. Like the best of science-fiction, this premise functions as a backdrop for an intensely emotional and human story, a prism through which to examine the human condition.

This is the rare film which feels like everything has sprung from a singular vision. The score, the sound design, the production design and the cinematography come together seamlessly to communicate the story. The visionary in question is Denis Villeneuve, whose previous films include Prisoners and Sicario . If you’ve seen either of those films, you’ll know how brilliantly Villeneuve crafts tension, and Arrival is no exception.

The alien ships are worth singling out—Villeneuve holds off  from showing them until it really matters, and the ethereal, otherworldly first look is breathtaking and achingly beautiful.

Adams and Jeremy Renner do some careerbest work anchoring this film, giving subtle and understated performances that fit with the films muted, earnest aesthetic. Adams, in particular, surely has her Oscar nomination in the bag, giving a performance that’s both stoic and vulnerable in equal measure.

The film’s screenplay displays a similarly beguiling mode of “doublethink”, balancing the compelling, small-scale human drama with the global ramifi cations of the story. Much of the plot hinges on incredibly complicated neurolinguistic ideas, and the screenplay anchors these in intellectually and emotionally engaging ways.

One of the key ways it does this is with strong characterisation, demonstrated right from the emotionally devastating opening. The narration in this first scene jars slightly, but it makes total sense once the film is underway as it brings the viewer neatly into the melancholy realism the film occupies.

The final act is worth touching on. The film has a lot to say about the nature of language and communication, dealing with some quite complex ideas in extremely accessible ways.

That said, the film takes a giant narrative leap toward the end, aiming for some truly cosmic ideas. For my money, it just about stuck the landing. Though for others, I can see it being met with some eyebrow raises. But the unpredictability of the narrative was a rare treat in an increasingly formulaic cinematic landscape, and I can guarantee you’ll be talking about the film for days afterwards.

I saw the film just days after the results of the US election were announced. It was a week where it felt like no one was doing anything but screaming at each other. Arrival was the perfect antidote—a reminder that our shared humanity unites us far more than any differences of opinion divide us. A film that highlights the importance of communication and cooperation is exactly what the world needs.

Stanford’s different standards

Maya Lorey
-
1
Stanford’s different standards

At Oxford, a student who writes well, speaks persuasively, and engages in critical conversation is considered “smart,” regardless of which college they belong to or what degree they are pursuing. The realization that this kind of liberal arts intellectualism is a central value here in Oxford shocked me. And that shock was deeply unsettling, because I realized I do not feel that way at Stanford. I do love the vibrancy of the Stanford community—the exciting fast-paced focus on innovation and progress. But my Oxford experience has revealed what is missing for me in Stanford.

First, the facts. Approximately 70 per cent of Oxford undergraduates read for humanities degrees. At Stanford, only 15 per cent of students major in the humanities. This difference speaks to an ongoing transformation in American education and culture: humanities programs, once the mainstay of a liberal arts education, now face a crisis of underenrollment at US universities.

Located in the heart of Silicon Valley, Stanford perhaps represents the extremity of a national shift in education towards science, technology, mathematics and engineering (STEM). In the New York Times article “Humanities Committee Sounds an Alarm” Jennifer Schuessler attributes the resounding decline in humanities majors to “the entrenched idea that the humanities and social sciences are luxuries that employment minded students can ill afford.”

I agree, in part, but students’ valid fears of job insecurity fall short of entirely accounting for the phenomenon at Stanford. Campus culture and social climate is impactful; at Oxford, academic culture plays a key role in keeping the humanities alive, whereas at Stanford, the laser focus on the quantifiable value of a college degree undermines the very legitimacy of the choice to major in a humanities subject.

The Stanford students I interviewed for this article agree that humanities students are often stereotyped and “othered” at Stanford. At best, the choice to major in the humanities earns regard as “interesting” while lacking in job prospects; at worst, humanities students are deemed frivolous and inferior.

Religious Studies and Philosophy double major Allison Zilversmit bluntly states, “Stanford is anti-intellectual.” She further postulates, “The humanities are dying at Stanford because they aren’t just a tool for your next job… they aren’t seen as having utility.” Kiley Samson, a Stanford Physics major, similarly commented that Stanford students consider the question “will this class be useful for me after Stanford?” above all else when deciding on their coursework, and by extension, their major. Lingxiao Li, a Math and Computer Science double major, agreed, adding that intellectual growth is not the central focus for many Stanford students. “I have friends who are like mercenaries,” he said, frowning. “They do not care about what they learn. They just want to get a degree and make money.”

These reflections echo the fear of job insecurity emphasized in the Times article, but also illustrate a regrettable cultural and economic sea change in how higher education is valued. Learning for the sake of learning, a once vaunted ideal, now seems quaintly elitist. While all the STEM students declared that the humanities remain important, they confirmed the dismissal and even denigration of “liberal arts intelligence” at Stanford, despite the university’s increased effort to celebrate and enshrine academic diversity.

Both Stanford students and Oxford students described a starkly different cultural and academic climate at Oxford. Owen Rappaport, a Classics major at New College, remarked, “in my mind, the fundamental part of Oxford intellectual life is around a dinner table.” This assertion underscores the importance placed on rhetorical ability at Oxford.

When I asked Walter Goodwin, a Biomedical Engineering major at Brasenose College, what sort of intelligence is highly valued here, he responded similarly with, “the ability to coherently create arguments.” He continued, “intelligence is someone’s persuasive logic based on their understanding of the topic under discussion.”

When comparing Stanford and Oxford, Zilversmit, a term-long Brasenose student like myself, agreed that Oxford students care deeply about intellectual discourse and rhetorical ability, while many Stanford students “don’t know how to disagree.” She reflected, “It’s really remarkable that I’ll be in class and start discussing something with someone and they will almost get off ended, as if I am contradicting their ‘right answer’ in favor of ‘my right answer.’ Ideally, the goal might never be about finding the ‘right answer;’ it is about engaging in discourse, and that engagement is the right answer.” Most Oxford students would probably agree with her.

Both Goodwin and Rappaport also noted how, compared to Stanford students, Oxford students seem far less focused on extra-curricular activities, resume building, and the necessary “applicability” of one’s degree. Goodwin observed that “in the States, the pursuit of extra-curriculars is given far more priority… and you have to do them rather artificially because it is almost a requirement [to get a job].”

Samson’s answer to the question “what sort of intelligence is highly valued at Stanford,” affirms Walter’s assessment. She described the epitome of intelligence at Stanford as “extra-curricular intelligence”—not only performing well in difficult classes, but also doing research and presenting it at international conferences, or founding one’s own business.

Some might be familiar with the 2015 Atlantic article “Rich Kids Study English,” which discussed a research group’s finding that “the amount of money a college student’s parents make … correlate[s] with what that person studies. Kids from lower income families tend toward “useful” majors, such as computer science, math, and physics. Those whose parents make more money flock to history, English, and performing arts.”

In the United States, students from low income and middle class backgrounds often face the daunting burden of student loans in addition to familial pressure to earn highly right out of college. Introducing the Atlantic article in the course of my interviews brought confirmation of such views. Samson asserted that, yes, wealthy students can indeed afford to major in the humanities because “they have something to fall back on,” a statement Zilversmit did not argue with.

Samson affirmed the researchers’ findings, commenting that “as someone coming from a lower socioeconomic background, I don’t think I could ever justify to myself the possibility of having two years without … a steady job or plan.” Both Goodwin and Rappaport commented that, while the “Rich Kids Study English” finding is probably to some degree true at Oxford, it is likely less significant. Walter explained that “the student loan system is so much more secure here that there is never any fear that you will be lumped with some kind of unpayable debt… there’s no reason to be afraid.”

So why are humanities important? Many argued that if we do not study the history, literature, and philosophy that form the cornerstones of our society, we risk forsaking consciousness altogether. But perhaps most unique and memorable was Goodwin’s testimony averring the importance of the humanities: “We have reached a point in technological innovation where the questions we need to be asking are again philosophical. Science and technology has solved so many of humanity’s problems, but now technology itself is becoming a problem, and that is a reality that humanities students and philosophical thinkers are going to need to tackle.”

I applied to Stanford as a likely English or History major, yet I declared to major in Human Biology. While I wish I could proclaim with full conviction that my decision was based entirely upon newfound interest and passion, I cannot. If Stanford’s undergraduate culture had encouraged me to feel that English and History majors are uniquely positioned to understand and thereby change the world, I likely would not have majored in Human Biology.

That said, I don’t regret my decision. I value the Human Biology Core, and had I not temporarily lost contact with the humanities, I might never have recognized their indelible importance to me. Thankfully, my time at Oxford has assured me that an education in the humanities will only increase my chance of contributing meaningfully to the communities where I work. Now, I must find a way to stay faithful to this creed back on the Stanford campus.

Red on Blue: Should public services be state-owned or privatised?

Michelle Hufschmid and Peter Saville
-
0
Red on Blue: Should public services be state-owned or privatised?

Red – Michelle Hufschmid

Companies should be nationalised if it improves their services. The most obvious candidate for nationalisation is British Rail, the result of a failed privatisation between 1994 and 1997, whose current state is a mixture of private companies operating trains and—since 2014—a public sector-owned infrastructure. Indeed, its track operator Railtrack declared bankruptcy in 2001 and was reconstituted as the effectively government-controlled Network Rail. Opening up train operations to free market competition between private companies demonstrably failed to improve quality: tickets are overpriced, with only 45 per cent of national passengers satisfied with the value for money of the cost. The trains themselves are frequently delayed, with only 85 per cent of trains punctual this year, and only 20 per cent of the trains operated by Southern in particular were on time.

Such transport is a necessity rather than a choice for most citizens. The absolute priority of the British train system must be to deliver all passengers to their destinations as quickly as possible with an excellent customer experience to affordable prizes. One of the principal expectations from privatisation was that the railway service could be delivered more efficiently in the private sector via the profit motive. However, the Conservative government’s expectation that considerable costs could be slashed were not fulfilled. Efficiency cannot be increased infinitely and British Rail had already done most of what could improve efficiency. The railways should not be run like a company, but as a public service.

The argument for customer power in the free market is that those who do not wish to purchase the product are free to choose another one. However, customer choice is limited by income, time, and the availability of infrastructure, whether track or road. Those who are dissatisfied do not have the opportunity, say, to choose not to commute to work. They may also not just simply drive by car, as this option is often more expensive, and buses are more time consuming. Renationalising British Rail allows it to focus wholly on improving passenger experience while reducing government subsidies.

Beyond the example of British Rail, the system of partially privatised and nationalised companies puts the taxpayer at a considerable disadvantage. In the time of companies that are too big to fail there is no more clear distinction between those privatised and nationalised. This does not just concern banks, but every large, international company represented at the stock market. Beneficial financial and economic policies from governments or central banks protect companies that are considered so important to state economies that their failure would be disastrous. Despite their free market rhetoric, these companies will seek to profit by this government protection by deliberately taking positions that are high-risk and high-return. They can do so because they can leverage these risks based on the policy preference they receive. If business goes well, they keep their profit. If business fails because companies acted overly risky, the tax-payer picks up the tab. A system in which responsibility remains with the government while the profits benefits a lucky few must be abolished in favour of full nationalisation.

 

Blue – Peter Saville

Reading the title of this piece, would you link successful companies like British Airways or even the long-distance haulers Eddie Stobart to past attempts at privatisation? Their examples prove that the face of privatisation isn’t quite as clear cut as an argument for raising efficiency on the railways. Privatisation undoubtedly has its faults, yet it has also been hugely successful in creating a dynamic capitalist system which spreads wealth. Privatisation isn’t the enemy of the state or state ownership, but a partner within the economy to create conditions under which government can thrive.

Originally privatisation in Britain was a reaction against the worst excesses of the post-war settlement where the sticky tentacles of state were wrapped around the car industry, telephones and even long-distance road haulage. The process of cutting free these industries produced Jaguar Cars, British Aerospace and British Airways, some of the most successful names in global business. It is no coincidence that, since BA was privatised in 1987, the fleet of aircraft has grown from 164 to 273 and annual passenger numbers have risen from 17.3 to 37.6 million. Free of political interference, the shareholders boosted productivity and produced cost effective world-class results.

British Telecoms, formed by privatisation in 1981, has moved on from having to wait six months to apply for a domestic telephone to operating in 170 countries and retuning regular profits in excess of £2.45 billion. The facts speak for themselves. But these aren’t just facts and profits: they provide jobs and opportunities for real people every day.

The successes of the 1980s remain relevant now. British Gas was privatised in 1986 and the government sold in excess of 1.5 million shares at a cost of 135p to the average man on the street. The adverts for the programme were titled ‘tell Sid’, presenting a series of ordinary villagers informing their neighbours of the great deal that the government controlled shares gave—and making sure to ‘tell Sid’. I don’t know who Sid was, but wherever he is, he got a pretty good deal: the stock prices have since increased nearly 1300 per cent. This tradition continues. When Post Office stock was sold in 2013, there were 700,000 applications to the government, far outstripping any available supply. There is quite simply a demand for popular and free ownership.

That is part of privatisation’s success: it gives people a role in the capitalist system, drawing them into a sense of ownership and belonging through shares and the success of their companies. In a nation where home ownership is something of a dream rather than a plan for the next 10-15 years, we need to create a sense of belonging and commitment to the capitalist system. 2016 is quickly shaping up as the year of disenfranchised rebellion and, if we want to turn the heat down on the simmering tensions, creating a capitalist system which works for all should be a top priority.

So, when Margaret Thatcher’s claimed that “privatisation is at the centre of any programme of reclaiming territory for freedom”, she was really onto something. Not only is a privatised business more effective and better able to share expertise, it also gives people a taste of the profit. This amounts to a sense of stability in uncertain times and needs to be a key part of creating a successful and free society.

The Lion, the Witch and the Controversy over C.S. Lewis nature reserve building

Jack Hunter
-
0
The Lion, the Witch and the Controversy over C.S. Lewis nature reserve building

Plans to build new housing close to the C.S. Lewis nature reserve have resulted in protest from Oxford residents.

The small area of Headington woodland supposedly served as C.S. Lewis’ inspiration while writing his children’s book series The Chronicles of Narnia.

Campaigners claim the C.S. Lewis Nature Reserve is under threat from a new building application close to the woodland which could “spoil this place of amazing magic and beauty”.

The Wychwood Foundation submitted plans to Oxford City Council to build nine apartments for vulnerable adults in a two and a half storey block, including 22 car spaces, at Wychwood Lane, Ringhurst, which runs adjacent to the nature reserve.

The application has since received fierce opposition from some campaigners, who handed a 4,250 signature petition to the council on Monday.

The petition organiser, Cara Langford, told Cherwell, “I spent my childhood playing in the C.S. Lewis reserve and now bring my own children there to explore the wonders it holds. The proposed development and access road will create noise, light, dust pollution and many more negative impacts on the environment and wildlife.”

The area of woodland once formed part of the back garden of C.S. Lewis, who was a fellow at Magdalen College from 1925 to 1954.

The Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust, who own the reserve, described it as a “tranquil woodland”, where the author enjoyed wandering while writing such titles as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian and the Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

The Oxford-based C.S. Lewis Foundation, who own the writer’s former home, The Kilns, urged Oxford City Council “to act now to preserve our rich legacy by denying approval of this most aggressive and egregiously offensive development proposal.”

A central objection of campaigners is the plan to construct an access road at the end of Lewis Close, which runs near to the reserve. Ms Langford said “it is such a wonderful place and the access road and property development that is planned to run along it will no doubt pollute the lake, increase the traffic making it unsafe for pedestrians and spoil this place of amazing magic and beauty. This area is of national and historical significance and should be preserved for generations to come.”

However, the campaigners’ claims have been strongly refuted by the Wychwood Foundation, who submitted the application. Speaking to Cherwell, Simon Beecher said “the access lane to the Wychwood Foundation will not be tarmaced, and does not encroach into or interfere with the Nature Reserve, as it travels through a private garden at the end of Lewis Close.

“The parking spaces allowed for in this garden are away from the boundary with the Nature Reserve, and considering the type of vulnerable and disabled people who will be living in the Foundation building, traffic movements are considered to be very light.”

Mr Beecher also stressed the efforts made by the Wychwood Foundation to protect the natural environment of the nature reserve. “The visibility of the new Foundation building will not in any way be dominating to the Reserve, because of the natural screening, which will also ensure all wildlife is not only preserved, but encouraged.”

“No effort is being spared to preserve the uniqueness of the Reserve, and the long term enjoyment of it by generations to come.”

A decision on the planning application is scheduled to be made by Oxford City Council on December 5.

Cherwell is recruiting – HT17

Editor
-
0
Cherwell is recruiting – HT17

Cherwell is now recruiting for editorial positions for next term. This is your chance to be part of one of the longest-running independent newspapers in the United Kingdom and to follow in the footsteps of past contributors like Graham Greene, W.H. Auden, Hadley Freeman, and Rupert Murdoch.

We are recruiting for section editors, deputy section editors, news reporters, broadcasters, and contributors.

Apply to be a Cherwell section editor here or a deputy section editor here. Email all application forms to [email protected].

Apply for a position on the Broadcasting team here. Email all application forms to [email protected].

Apply to be a News Reporter here. Email all application forms to [email protected].

The deadline for applications will be on Monday November 28 at 8pm. Please email any queries to [email protected].

Cherwell is also looking for a Puzzles Editor, cartoonists, illustrators, and photographers – all interested contact [email protected].

Candidates will have a short, informal interview with the editors. Interviews will be held during 8th Week.

Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for recruitment updates and news.

Our Business team is also always looking for new recruits. Cherwell provides some of the best business experience in Oxford and provides excellent preparation for any media, consulting or banking career. We’ll train you on all relevant parts of the business and teach you to raise £10,000 independently. Email [email protected] to express interest.

Editorial job descriptions:

News:

In the last six months, Cherwell has been the first to report Wahoo closing, the Norrington Table results, Tim Berners-Lee joining Oxford faculty and the Trinity freshers’ exploits in the Sheldonian. It’s very easy to get involved in the News section (and you can still contribute to other sections of the paper too): just send an email to [email protected], come to an informal interview, and you can be at the forefront of student journalism (maybe even literally on the front page).

Comment:

The Comment section has a well-respected tradition of printing cutting-edge opinion pieces from students on a range of Oxford and national issues. Our best debates and opinion pieces are read around the University and online, frequently attracting several thousand hits.

Joining the Comment team also allows you to interview leading political figures and celebrities. In the last term, Cherwell has interviewed Mary Beard, Jeremy Paxman, Richard Dawkins and Slavoj Žižek.

If you’re passionate about a subject and want to share your views and spark debate, join us. You can be a Deputy Comment Editor even if you haven’t written for us before – Deputy Comment Editors are intended to form a permanent core of reliable writers which can called upon regularly to write for the section. If you just want to write on an ad hoc basis as a contributor there’s no need to fill out a form, just email [email protected].

Life:

The Life hosts a number of Cherwell’s most popular features, including our Letter from Abroad and the (in)famous Blind Date.

We also have a Food & Drink page, which you can additionally apply to edit, or to write for. It features a wide variety of reviews and recipes. If you want to review college meals, bars or restaurants, this is place to look.

Deputy Life Editors are intended to form a permanent core of reliable writers which can called upon regularly to write for the section. If you just want to write on an ad hoc basis as a contributor there’s no need to fill out a form, just email [email protected].

Investigations:

We are extremely proud of our Investigations section, otherwise known as C+. This is where some of the most in-depth, investigative journalism is done, tackling some of the biggest issues in Oxford today. This term, C+ has investigated, amongst other things, Oxford’s access problem, sexual assault in Oxford, and inter-college disparity. If you want to test the waters of investigative life before becoming completely in charge of it, apply for Deputy Investigations Editor.

Culture:

Culture is our largest section, with pages dedicated to Film & TV, Stage, Music, Books & Lit, and Photo & Art. We’re one of the first ports of call for reviews of all the student plays, as well as all the other cultural delights which Oxford offers.

If you’d like to edit the whole Culture section, or any of the Film & TV, Stage, Music, Books & Lit or Photo & Art pages, please fill in the Section Editor form. If you would just like to contribute to Culture occasionally, there’s no need to fill in a form — please just email [email protected] expressing your interest.

Fashion:

Our Fashion section has gone from strength to strength this term. If you want to organise weekly photoshoots, or you’ve got opinions on fashion and fancy being the next Sartorialist, this is the section for you.

Deputy Fashion Editors are intended to form a permanent core of reliable writers which can called upon regularly to write for the section and to help with the weekly fashion shoots. If you just want to write on an ad hoc basis as a contributor there’s no need to fill out a form, just email [email protected].

Sport:

We report on many major sporting occasions in Oxford – whether your interest is rugby, swimming or lacrosse, there are opportunities for objective analysis of the big games, or not-so-objective match reports from those involved in college matches. Get involved with the Sport section to continue this trend and expand high quality coverage to other sporting fields.

Apply to be a Deputy Sport Editor if you would like to be part of a permanent team of reliable writers which can called upon regularly to write for the section. If you just want to write on an ad hoc basis as a contributor you don’t need to fill out a form, just email [email protected].

Broadcasting:

Our Broadcasting section has produced fantastic content over the last term, from the our weekly news round up to investigating Jury’s Inn Hotel and underwater polo in Oxford. If you have experience in production and editing, or are just keen to learn, then apply to join the broadcasting team.

Jon Boden at the O2: Painted Lady and other folk

Ben Ray
-
0
Jon Boden at the O2: Painted Lady and other folk

In Oxford to promote his new anniversary release of his rare debut solo album Painted Lady, it was clear from the moment Jon Boden walked onto the O2 Academy stage that it was going to be an enjoyable, successful night. With his strong Oxford roots (in the audience that night was Jon Spiers, other half of their successful duo Spiers & Boden) it was clear the audience was on his side—Boden even dropped a rye mention of his years “spent living in the Half Moon pub”, raising a cheer from his old landlord in the audience. It felt less a formal performance and more a gathering amongst friends—only enhanced by the ease and grace with which each song flowed out from Boden with skill and beauty that can only be expected from such a formidable musician. Described as “the stand out traditional folk performer of his generation”, Boden has gone from strength to strength, performing with his own band The Remnant Kings, becoming lead singer of the multi-award winning Bellowhead and still somehow finding time to release solo albums that push the boundaries of the folk music genre. This rich tapestry emerged throughout the night, as Boden mixed songs from Painted Lady with older, more recognisable hits from Bellowhead performances—raising cheers and spontaneous singalongs from the audience.

Boden’s release Painted Lady, remastered with new material, contains his unmistakable, unique sound – and gives a fascinating glimpse at his early work. Almost completely self-penned, each song is masterfully crafted to give a nod to Boden’s wide breadth of instrumentation and vocal skills, from the high-powered romp and electric guitar riffs of ‘Pocketful of Mud’ to the gentle fiddle-driven lullaby of ‘Ophelia’. This album includes glockenspiel, Indian harmonium, Moog synthesiser, a drum machine, octave fiddle… but under Boden’s careful eye and accompanied by his distinctive voice, each varied song on this album manages to come together to make perfect sense as a revolutionary piece of folk music.

Boden brought his ingenious, creative approach to music to life in his performance, linking his shruti box to a pedal on one foot and stomping out a beat with the other, allowing him to create a recognisable all-around sound that was completed with fiddle and distinctive voice. Nothing seemed too far for Boden – whether it was singing accompanied merely by handclaps, or performing a cover of Whitney Houston’s 80s hit ‘I wanna dance with somebody’ (one of the new, bonus tracks on Painted Lady), the music electrified the audience and held the room in silence.

Boden’s creativity and versatility when approaching traditional music, which comes shining through on tracks from his latest album such as ‘All Hang Down’ (an interpretation of a temperance movement song that was transformed by sailors into a drinking shanty), managed to breathe energy into these old tunes and get the crowd dancing and swaying in time with his beat. Whether it was his slightly over-long ballad about shipwrecks that ended the first half of the performance, or his own personal songs from his concept album Songs from the Floodplain, exploring the idea of folk music in a post-apocalyptic world, Boden’s infectious joy and enthusiasm got the whole room singing along and stomping their feet, and left me with a grin on my face for the rest of the evening. After all, in the words of Boden himself, “it’s only the good times that can make the bad times seem so far away”—and that’s exactly what this music does. As well as standing as testament to his mastery and love of the folk music genre, Painted Lady reflects Boden’s early efforts to stretch and question its boundaries: a desire that has taken him far, and, as shown by his performance at the O2 Academy, has led him to become one of the most accomplished folk musicians of our time.

Review: Summer and Smoke

James Lamming
-
0
Review: Summer and Smoke

While the plot of Tennessee Williams’ Summer and Smoke follows a spiritual and romantic relationship which never quite blossoms, there can be no doubt that this student production flowered sensationally. The two-act play, which revolves around the lives of Alma Winemiller (Natalie Lauren) and John Buchanan Jr. (Leo Danczak), tenderly traces their complex romance from first kiss to final heartbreak, all in a tricky Southern drawl. Through excellent acting and subtly imaginative production, this performance movingly captures the human emotions involved at every stage of any human relationship.

Set against the backdrop of turn-of-the-century Mississippi, director Aimée Kwan cleverly brings the era’s social tensions to the forefront of the play by having actors perform two roles; Saul Lowndes-Britton does double service as both Alma’s father, a puritanical preacher who disapproves of the less religious and more scientifically minded Buchanan, and Gonzales, the Mexican owner of a casino. Lowndes-Britton does a brilliant job of completely changing both accent and mannerisms to increase the contrast between two of the play’s key father figures. Unfortunately, the same trick does not quite work in the case of Rosa, Gonzalez’s seductive Mexican daughter, and Nellie, a scatter-brained yet charming music pupil; although each role was well acted by Olivia White, at the end Williams’ play has the characters become too similar to allow one person to act both.

Both the studio and the set are masterfully chosen by Kwan and set designed Sarah Davies. Within the intimate black box confines of the Burton-Taylor studio, the audience sits just touching distance from Alma and John, mirroring perfectly the suffocating small town of Glorious Hill, where local gossip Mrs Bassett (the excellent and amusing Louie Iselin) seems to be everywhere and know everything. The set is equally inspired; the sparse medical office of Buchanan on the left is separated only from the Winemillers’ more traditional American parlour by a flimsy piece of panelling. With the interior of both houses always visible, Kwan often has two conflicting scenes going on independently of one another. My only complaint about the set is that it rarely reflects the oppressive heat and summer of the play’s title; Tennessee Williams explicitly specified that “there must be a great expanse of sky so that the entire action of the play takes place against it” and that “during the day the sky should be a pure and intense blue”.

However, the quality of the acting is universally superb. El Port’s noteworthy portrayal of a mentally ill preacher’s wife was a fine mix of amusing and disturbing, while both Hugh Tappin and Tommy Peet give very solid performances considering they are each required to act three different roles during the play. Leo Danczak is a superbly versatile male lead who manages his character’s alarmingly swift character development with both aplomb and maturity. However, it is are doubt Natalie Lauren who steals the show; her stuttering mannerisms and nervous delivery were so realistic that I cannot tell when she really fluffs her lines and when she is merely a far better actress than I am a critic. During one of the play’s most dramatic moments between Buchanan and Rosa Gonzalez, my eyes are instead drawn to the unlit Lauren holding back tears of heartbreak; if you go, it is well worth watching out for this incredible piece of acting. Overall, despite the occasional confusion over cast members playing multiple roles and a slightly loose interpretation of Williams’ set, Summer and Smoke is far and away the best production I have seen at Oxford.

OxFolk Reviews: Faustus – Death and other Animals

Ben Ray
-
0
OxFolk Reviews: Faustus – Death and other Animals

“Men of England, you are slaves!” There aren’t many folk albums that open with such a resounding, powerful voice—but then Faustus aren’t the average group. This trio, formed of Benji Kirkpatrick, Paul Sartin and Saul Rose, is a bold voice on the traditional music scene—and their skill and ingenuity shine through in their latest album Death and other Animals.

Faustus’ wide range of experience is testament to their ability to push the boundaries of folk music: with various members of the group having performed in groups such as Bellowhead, Whapweazel and Belshazzar’s Feast, it is no wonder Faustus’ music shows an accomplished, sharp edge that adapts each traditional song to fit their own indomitable style.

Death and other Animals continues Faustus’ tradition of approaching traditional music from new, exciting angles, breathing fresh life into everything from 20th century American ballads to Chartist parodies of Shelley’s poetry, making it twist and dance in fascinating ways.

Having been made 2016 Artists in Residence for Halsway Manor, the National Centre for Folk Arts, the band were given huge scope and access to previously unknown material— including, tantalisingly, “a filing cabinet in the staff room… comprising the archive of folklorist Ruth Tongue.”

The combination of this treasure trove of music and Faustus’ loud, exuberant style makes for a stunning collection of tunes, each track telling a different story woven into the artists’ blistering music. The wistful lyrics of ‘One More Day’, a song sung by retired mariner and shanty man John Short in 1914, are here energised with Kirkpatrick’s searing mandolin riff and Sartin’s soaring fiddle, all driven along at breakneck speed by Rose’s melodeon, creating a tune so powerful the listener is almost pushed back in their seat. This is then immediately juxtaposed with the gentle tones of ‘The Death of the Hart Royal’, with the soft voices of Sartin and Rose effortlessly blending to bring this slow, sad 15th century eulogy to life.

On first hearing this album, I was initially surprised at the enveloping blanket of sound Faustus manage to create on each track: although only being a trio, they manage to boast an astonishing array of instruments. Bouzouki, melodeons, oboe, even a cor englais—all these allow the group to give each song a unique feel. However, there is also a sense of immense respect for the songs themselves, with each story given time to emerge at their own pace alongside Faustus’ skilled musicianship. As song after song surprise and entertain, it is clear Faustus are never content with covering the same ground twice, and are ingenious at approaching old songs with new ideas—making Death and other Animals an absorbing and fascinating listen.

1...966967968...2,515Page 967 of 2,515

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley