Blog Page 997

Harwood and Bouattia clash over NUS vision

Jordan Bernstein
-
0
Harwood and Bouattia clash over NUS vision

NUS President Malia Bouattia and challenger Tom Harwood faced off yesterday (Wednesday) in a debate at Manchester Student Union.

The hustings took place as part of a series of sessions to be held around the country before the NUS Conference votes on the next president later this month.

Bouattia made history last year as the first Muslim woman elected to the NUS presidency; she has promised to continue her fight to transform the NUS into a grassroots movement.

Her election sparked various disaffiliation campaigns at universities around the country, allegations of anti-Semitism being something which has plagued her tenure.

Also standing is the current NUS Vice-President Shakira Martin, who has vowed to “make education an option for everyone” if elected. She has held various positions within the Union, and won her election last year with 141 votes to 55.

Harwood, the third candidate, made headlines last year with his campaign to be an NUS delegate, with pledges that included erecting a statue of Malia.

He claims that the NUS as a movement has been taken over by the far left, and that it needs to be dragged back to the centre in order to foster more student engagement.

Free speech on campus divided the candidates early on in the hustings. Bouattia claimed that while she supported freedom of speech, there had been a “conflation” between freedom of speech and freedom to hate.

Harwood on the other hand questioned Malia’s decision not to condemn Lincoln Student Union for censoring the Conservative Society last month, saying that this was an example of the sort of politics which alienated many from the NUS.

Harwood was hopeful on Brexit, saying he wanted to stand up for the continued operation of programmes like Erasmus + and Horizon2020.

He later told Cherwell: “We can also use Brexit as a unique opportunity to pursue necessary changes… We can now credibly push for deepening links with higher education institutions around the world.”

Harwood went on to say: “The rhetoric of other candidates in this election, saying that any borders at all are racist for example, is unlikely to help secure the best deal for students.”

Bouattia, by contrast, focused on her vision for an NUS whose main mission was to hold Government to account.

She talked of the places that her NUS had secured on key consultative committees, and the demands that had already been issued on behalf of students to the Government for what was expected out of negotiations, such as increased freedom for students and securing research funding.

The NUS President has a key role in setting the agenda and priorities for student politics nationally.

For Harwood, peaceful collaboration and moderate stances were key: “Dialogue is always better than protest” he told the audience, saying that it “was possible to win” in securing everything from student rights to post-Brexit research funding if the NUS was more inclusive and thus more representative.

Bouattia outlined her desire to continue recent successes in fighting against this year’s Higher Education Bill, for her, showed that the people and the grassroots were already in charge of the student movement.

Speaking exclusively to Cherwell following the hustings, presidential candidate Tom Harwood said: “My NUS would not grandstand on irrelevant geopolitical issues, but focus on the issues that actually matter to students.”

He went on to say: “In order to attract back more students, we have to start speaking for all students, and be welcoming to everyone (even if they don’t think that Jeremy Corbyn is the best thing since 1917!). This starts by implementing a system whereby all students can vote for our national president.”

Elections for NUS President take place at the conference in Brighton from 25 – 27 April.

Malia Bouattia and Shakira Martin, the third presidential candidate who was unable to attend the hustings, have both been contacted for comment.

Open House group evicted from third building

Theo Davies-Lewis
-
1
Open House group evicted from third building

The Open House group, which organises shelter, meals and training for homeless people, will be evicted from a third property in Oxford, it has been revealed.

Iffley Open House—also known as ‘Osney Open House’—have been squatting in an unused Italian restaurant in Summertown this month, but due to a court order the group must leave by 7 April.

Previously, members of the homeless group had been squatting in a former VW showroom in Iffley Road, owned by Wadham College, for two months. Oxford University students worked alongside local volunteers to aid the homeless residents.

However, the leaseholders of the ground floor of the building—The Midcounties Cooperative—issued a possession order to have the squatters evicted on February 27.

Before moving into the abandoned restaurant, the group were reportedly offered shelter at a church in East Oxford after they were forced to leave the Old Power Station in Osney.

The Old Power Station is owned by the University of Oxford, and the proposals for the Saïd Business School to lease the building from the University to help meet its requirements for more teaching space is thought to be the reason for the group being evicted.

As a result of their eviction from the power station, Oxford University students organised a protest outside the Saïd Business School in a bid to highlight the amount of empty buildings in the city. The demonstration, which took place in Frideswide Square, coincided with the business school’s third annual Oxford Real Estate Conference.

Speaking to the BBC, Iffley Open House member “Neo” commented on the latest developments: “It seems a shame to leave a building empty when there is an epidemic of homelessness in Oxford.

“A lot of these people—when they end up on the street—they’ve lost everything. And what you need to do is you need to build them up, get them back into work, [and] give them purpose.”

According to the group, two people have been re-housed and seven members have found jobs as a result of the project.

Open House have been contacted for comment.

My town and my gown: between dreaming spires and magic roundabouts

Eleanor Jerome
-
0
My town and my gown: between dreaming spires and magic roundabouts

Although only a 40-minute drive down the A420 separates the two­—a fact that I am always thankful for when hauling all my worldly possessions back and forth every eight weeks—Swindon can seem like a world away from the honey-tinted stone and neatly-trimmed quads of Oxford.

Despite the fact that it was once twinned with Disneyland Paris, I’m not convinced that the tag line ‘happiest place on Earth’ is the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about Swindon. Instead, when I tell people where I’m from, they recognise it as either the town where the Bodleian has a book storage facility, the place where the Wernham Hogg Paper Company from TV sitcom The Office has its second branch, or maybe just as the place that has loads of roundabouts. In fact, the Mayfair of the Swindon Monopoly board (yes, we have our own special edition Monopoly) is the Magic Roundabout: five mini-roundabouts arranged around a sixth central roundabout. Roundabouts are to Swindon what cyclists are to Oxford: absolutely everywhere and a major concern for nervous learner drivers.

Aside from the roads, the differences in the nightlife between Swindon and Oxford stand out. One thing I do miss about Swindon nights out is the free entry and the cheaper drinks. One thing I don’t miss is the sexual harassment that seems to be so much more common. I have never experienced unwarranted roaming hands on the dancefloor or catcalling on the walk home from the club in Oxford, but the same can’t be said for my nights out back home. However, perhaps I have just been lucky. After all, Oxford certainly isn’t devoid of such issues.

My next complaint may seem trivial in comparison, but it is one just as close to my heart: there are simply no good kebab vans in Swindon. The Oxford streets offer a plethora of wonderfully greasy options for students stumbling back to college in the early hours. But in Swindon, the closest you can get to a falafel wrap from Hassan’s or a St Anne’s Special from Ali’s (if you haven’t heard of this, please do yourself a favour and look it up) is a cook-from-frozen garlic bread baguette drunkenly thrown in the oven at 4am. Despite all of this, I do sometimes find myself in the middle of the crowded cheese floor of Park End, yearning for the Swindon night out. Without the luxury of several floors that can all play different genres, the Swindon DJs have no choice but to mix between cheese, house and R&B all in the same set. Although it’s slightly strange to hear Robbie Williams’ ‘Angels’ transition smoothly into ‘Gasolina’, the eclectic mix is weirdly enjoyable. It allows you to cover all your music tastes without having to manically run from floor to floor, inevitably losing several of your friends in the process.

Further contrasts between my ‘home home’ and my ‘home from home’ are immediately clear to anyone who has wandered through the centres of both. Oxford is characterised by historical colleges and procrastinating students overflowing out of quaint pubs, or lazily punting down the Cherwell. The centre of Swindon, on the other hand, is characterised by the aforementioned roundabouts and some horrendous blocks of 1960s architecture (actually, this is one thing that Swindon and Oxford have in common—every college seems to have the obligatory concrete eyesore). To be fair, Swindon has been working hard on regeneration and the centre has undeniably improved—we now have a GBK and a Nando’s—but the shopping choice still leaves much to be desired. Actually, perhaps this is a blessing in disguise. I can blow my student loan in a matter of weeks thanks to the seemingly never-ending Zara sale in the Clarendon, but my bank account stands a much better chance over the vac, when I have to venture out to Bristol or Bath for a proper shopping trip. This links to one of my favourite things about living in Swindon: its close proximity to a wealth of other worthy destinations. Bristol, Bath, Reading, the Cotswolds, Cardiff and, of course, Oxford are all only a short and relatively inexpensive train-ride away.

OK, OK, so ‘It’s pretty close to better places!’ doesn’t sound particularly flattering to the town itself. And yes, Swindon isn’t without its flaws. But, although I have quickly become accustomed to thinking of Oxford as my home, I always feel relief at escaping the high-pressure of the dreaming spires, and returning to the strange comfort of my imperfect hometown.

 

 

 

 

Superpowered seagrasses: the hidden gems of the plant world

Ruby O'Grady
-
0
Superpowered seagrasses: the hidden gems of the plant world

If you’ve ever swum in the sea around the UK, you’ve no doubt had to carefully pick your way around those unpleasant, slippery patches of seaweed. Seaweeds seem incredibly plant-like—with long, often green ‘leaves’ connected together on the seafloor—but they are actually a quite disparate group of multicellular red, brown and green algae. The Green Algae are in fact the group which contained the ancestors of all plants, from the tallest of the trees to the miniature succulent sitting in your bedroom. Perfectly adapting to life on land, terrestrial plants have massively diversified, spreading across the continents in the process. However, only a handful of species have returned to the environment of their algal ancestors, living a fully aquatic lifestyle for the duration of their life-cycle. These unique plants are the seagrasses.

Populating only 0.2 percent of the world’s oceans, these seagrasses are of hugely disproportionate ecological importance for the wider ecosystem, with the full extent of their impact only just beginning to be understood.

It is well known that terrestrial ecosystems, such as our rainforests, lock away much of the carbon we produce—a phenomenon known as a carbon sink. But in 2012 it was found that seagrasses store about twice the average amount of carbon per hectare when compared to the land plants, making seagrasses much more effective carbon sinks. Following this revelation, the term ‘blue carbon’ was coined to describe the carbon captured by seagrasses in the world’s oceans, reflecting their growing importance.

A study published in January hinted that this hitherto underdog of the plant world may have even more hidden benefits. They examined the effect of seagrasses on the amount of potentially pathogenic bacteria emanating from sewage pollution in the sea water, as well as on land when exposed during the low tide. They found a clear difference: 50 per cent fewer bacteria were found at sites with seagrass than those without. The mechanism behind this impressive reduction in disease has yet to be established, though there are a number of hypotheses. The authors suggest the blades of the grasses may act to reduce water flow and therefore cause more sediment, containing bacteria, to fall to the sea floor, though this is simply one of many hypotheses. Perhaps the microbiome around the seagrasses outcompetes pathogenic bacteria from the sewage, similar to the bacterial competition seen in the human gut. Or maybe the plants launch an effective immune response, directly removing the bacteria from the sea. Although the study only showed an effect of this difference in bacterial concentrations on coral (which had significantly less disease when located near seagrass), these findings raise the strong possibility that the seagrasses could be highly effective when used to filter out sewage bacteria that cause harm to human health.

Unfortunately, seagrasses are yet another example of organisms suffering at the hands human activity. 29 per cent of the meadows known to exist at the beginning of the twentieth century are thought to have disappeared after suffering destruction through processes such as seabed dredging. However, hope remains. In the face of climate change, these remarkable plants have displayed yet another valuable characteristic: they show high degrees of phenotypic plasticity, the ability by which an organism can change its physical shape and behaviour in response to rapidly changing environmental conditions.

Studies have shown that these formidable grasses can acclimatise to chronically poor water quality by changing their physiological and morphological characteristics, using mechanisms such as increasing their cellular starch levels. Some species are even able to withstand periods of prolonged light deprivation. Research into these remarkable plants is still undergoing and promises to continue, undoubtedly expanding our understanding of their incredible abilities.

It’s time to acknowledge the underwater underdog of plant world. If we can save and cherish them, seagrasses will prove to be great assets in buffering the human impact on the environment, as well as helping us fight disease and better our everyday lives.

Labour members must stay in order to save the Party

Keir Mather
-
0
Labour members must stay in order to save the Party

I saw a tweet from Dan Hodges yesterday, saying it is “now morally indefensible to be a member of the Labour Party”. It produced the same nauseating churn I felt when the Livingstone verdict was first announced. I like to think of myself as a person who would not tolerate antisemitism, and deliberate intellectual fabrication to justify it, wherever it manifests itself. So how can I justify remaining a member of this Party? Labour is a cause to which I have given so much of my energy and passion, into which I invested myself completely. If it now wilfully accepts that people of Livingstone’s despicable ilk are merely part of our ‘broad church’, can I really stay?

Allowing these questions to roll around inside me, I came to an even more distressing perspective.

It is very easy for fellow members and me to say that Ken Livingstone isn’t really Labour, that he’s a tired old man with some eccentric views who doesn’t represent our Party. But after the disciplinary board’s ruling, that line simply doesn’t cut it any longer.

Firstly, Ken is not the sole antisemite within Labour. Although they make up a pitifully small minority, some of these reprehensible figures have risen to intolerably high positions. This, coupled with a leader who has failed to call for Livingstone’s expulsion, has meant that Labour doesn’t simply have antisemites hiding within it, they are now active, prominent, and vocal too, spurred on by the impunity offered by a leadership so weak that they’re afraid to shun supporters from whatever disgusting ideological backwater they emanate.

I obviously can’t say that Ken Livingstone doesn’t represent Labour, when he did represent us as Mayor of London for eight years. Yet his career has been trailblazing for the usage of every asinine stereotype of Jews it is possible to contemplate. In 2014, a year before I became a member, Livingstone went on Newsnight and argued that Jewish people started voting for Thatcher because they had gotten richer. Whilst Mayor, he told two property developers, brothers of Iraqi-Jewish descent, to “go back to Iran and ‘try their luck with the Ayatollahs’” if they disagreed with him, and compared the Jewish journalist Oliver Finegold to a Nazi guard of a concentration camp.

These were comments by a man who smugly trotted out the view that “in 47 years of the party in all the meetings I’ve been in I’ve never heard anyone say anything antisemitic.” The fact that Livingstone has survived in the party for so long can only point to an institutionalised acceptance of antisemitism, over many years, by those who were in the position of power to do something about it. It makes me and thousands of other fellow members sick to have to share our membership with someone more suited to babbling conspiracy theories on street corners than holding public office.

So what are we to do? Should we leave and invest our efforts into a more pure cause, or do we stay and fight? I will always argue for the latter. The nature of our democracy, where large parties draw in all manner of individuals, whose views are often hard to know, causes us unique problems in this country. I, however, would never advocate a member of the Conservative Party resigning their membership if they came across incidences of antisemitism.

If they believed that the Tories were a force for good, I would encourage them to stay and fight for what they believed in, and not let the views of a hateful minority prevail. I say exactly the same to my Labour colleagues now.

The public, the press, and clearly the disciplinary board of our Party can’t do the job for us. It is our moral obligation to stay, dig in, and prepare to embark on the long battle to banish these odious individuals from our Party, to defend what Labour is supposed to stand for: tolerance and respect, no matter how long it takes. To leave, and to abandon the fight, would be to turn our back on so many people who deserve our support, brave MPs like Wes Streeting and Ruth Smeeth, who have been fighting antisemitism with an unrivalled tenacity, and the Jewish Labour members who have played an indispensable role in this Party since its very foundation. All of these people deserve our backing, and to leave them now would be a betrayal not only to them, but to what Labour has achieved and everything it stands for.

So I’m not leaving, and neither should you.

Facing the difficulties of going ‘au naturel’

Eleanor Birdsall-Smith
-
0
Facing the difficulties of going ‘au naturel’

Recently, Alicia Keys has been braving the world with a bare face, choosing to wear only minimal or no makeup for all her public appearances, including her recent Grammy show and interview with Jimmy Fallon. All instances of this, thus far, have received an inevitable, yet nevertheless extreme backlash. The comments ranged in their criticisms from a simple aversion to her appearance, right up to discussions surrounding a women’s duty to wear makeup, which ties in with other recent controversies on issues like the requirement for heels in the workplace.

It goes without saying that women should not be forced, or even expected to paint their faces in a way that suits the supposed requirements of society. However, these issues throw light on problems that lie on the other side of the argument. While (as recent events demonstrate) to not put your best face forward, so to speak, is taboo, there is an equally unhealthy obsession with ‘natural beauty’. Of course, everyone wants to be beautiful, and there is nothing wrong with going au naturel, but the desperate need to look as if no effort has been put into our appearance has become yet another cage that women are trapped within. These desires both feed into and are fuelled by unrealistic societal expectations, which have recently been manifesting themselves in popular internet memes like ‘this is why you take her swimming on the first date’, and it needs to stop.

There were so many trials and tribulations that I experienced during my tween-teen years, which I struggled through in isolation, but since talking to friends about it, I have realised I was in fact just one of many. One factor that most surprised me was the fervent desire to conceal any use of makeup. “Ooh are you wearing mascara today?” a friend might ask, to which the hasty reply might range from an outright no, to stories of having tried things out last night and forgetting to wash it off. I distinctly remember coating my face with a Benefit highlight and bronzer block, (without any kind of skill or blending, I might add) but when I was asked if I had contoured, I point blank denied it, getting preposterously stroppy about such a ridiculous assertion, while the powder pink glitter gleamed on my cheeks.

We see this type of behaviour throughout, with common expressions like, “Oh I just rolled out of bed,” or “I just threw it on.” The severely problematic film The Ugly Truth even has Katherine Heigl in a perfect bodycon black cocktail dress utter the phrase, “Oh, I was just doing the dishes,” in a bid to come across as most desirable to the needs of man.

Herein lies the issue, for why are we so terrified of the embarrassment or ridicule received when looking as if we have tried, if we are fit to receive the same treatment upon actually not trying and showing a true face without makeup?

This is not an issue necessarily exclusive to the fashion industry. It is just as common for people to pretend that they haven’t studied in order to appear fundamentally more intelligent, while also fending off ‘nerd’ stereotypes. Yet, it is exclusively within the world of fashion and beauty that these issues predominantly harm women. It plays into the age-old stereotypes of the vain blonde with no brain and the unkempt shrew, and it just further narrows the microscopic space in between these two sides, which is apparently where women are permitted to function.

It shouldn’t be a revolutionary statement at this stage to say that women need to be permitted to look and do as they please, putting in as much or little effort as they see fit at any given moment. Yet apparently this is something that still needs to be actively fought.

It is, however, sadly unrealistic to expect the magazines and society to stop holding us to these standards. What we can do is give ourselves and each other a break. The shame surrounding ‘trying’ needs to be fiercely broken down, and that means more honesty.

If it makes it easier, channel Alicia Key’s approach, who, upon Adam Levine’s enquiries as to why she was wearing makeup (after her previous stance against it), replied “I do what the fuck I want”.

The gradual death of the FA Youth Cup

Matthew Roller
-
0
The gradual death of the FA Youth Cup

In May 2010, Chelsea won the FA Youth Cup for the first time in 49 years thanks to a 3-2 aggregate victory over Aston Villa.

Writing for The Guardian, Dominic Fifield declared that this was the start of a “bright new age” for the club, and that the win was an “important step for a club whose big-spending days are behind them.”

Fast forward to 2017, and the Blues have the opportunity to win a fourth consecutive FA Youth Cup, and a sixth in eight years after a comprehensive 9-2 aggregate win against Tottenham in their semi-final.

Their opponents, Manchester City, also won 9-2 in their semi-final, and are appearing in their third final in as many seasons.

And yet even the quickest of glances at the two sides’ current first-team squads should demonstrate the futility of these results: they are almost entirely devoid of youth academy graduates.

Only Kelechi Iheanacho and Aleix Garcia of the 25 City players to have made a Premier League appearance this season graduated from the academy. For Chelsea, the only former youth-teamer to have started in the league this season is 36-year-old John Terry.

Indeed, the common pathway from youth team to senior recognition of the 1990s has long since gone.

A whole generation of Youth Cup winners, including Manchester United’s famous ‘Class of ’92’, West Ham’s Joe Cole and Michael Carrick, Jonathan Woodgate of Leeds and Liverpool’s Jamie Carragher, went on to hold down a spot in the England side.

But Jack Wilshere accounts for over half of the international caps won by post-2000 Youth Cup winners, with only the motley group of Jay Bothroyd, Kieran Richardson, Michael Keane, Jesse Lingard, and the disgraced Adam Johnson joining him as full internationals.

It could be suggested that this is due to the increased cosmopolitanism of Premier League clubs’ youth academies, with ever more Youth Cup winners coming to England as teenagers having spent most of their childhood overseas.

However, a glance at the current clubs of Chelsea’s 2010 Youth Cup winners suggests otherwise.

The Blues’ starting eleven in the second leg of that final currently hold contracts with the following sides: Colchester United, Crawley Town (x2), Swindon Town, Wolfsburg, Dundalk, Sampdoria, West Ham United, Brentford and SønderjyskE Fodbold.

Left-back Aziz Deen-Conteh, meanwhile, is without a club having been released by Georgian outfit FC Zugdidi in 2016.

Youth Cup wins may appear to vindicate the millions poured into Chelsea and City’s academies by their billionaire owners, who hope their investment will turn the pair into ‘superclubs’ like Real Madrid or Barcelona. It will satisfy them to see their vanity projects successful at all levels: even if City’s senior team fails to win any silverware this season, they might have a ‘Premier League 2’, FA Youth Cup and Women’s Super League victory to look upon with contentment.

But the trophy’s purpose is surely in question at this stage, with so few players going on to play at a top-flight level later in their career.

Sadly, it is only a matter of time before more clubs follow Brentford’s lead by realising that it may well be cost-effective to shut their academy entirely.

Around a year ago, the West London club responded to restrictions placed upon their player development strategy by the Premier League’s Elite Player Performance Plan by shutting their academy and using a ‘B-team’ model. With so much competition on their doorstep for top talent, Brentford decided that spending £2 million every year on their academy was not worthwhile, and instead are recruiting players aged 17-21 who have fallen by the wayside having promised big things previously.

Four of those who appeared for Brentford B in friendlies against Manchester United, Liverpool, and Bayern Munich XIs this season have already gone on to play for the full side, who sit mid-table in the Championship, and bigger clubs will undoubtedly be looking at the success of the Bees’ decision.

Fifield wrote in 2010 that Chelsea’s Youth Cup win, watched by some 10,446 fans at Stamford Bridge, was a “sign of things to come”, and that their starting XI would “become familiar names” in due course. But the 2017 final looms, the competition’s very purpose is in question: it exists for all the right reasons, yet now appears to be an antiquated relic of English football’s past.

Tim Farron interview: “This is the very moment that the country needs a bold and competent opposition”

Jack Hunter
-
0
Tim Farron interview: “This is the very moment that the country needs a bold and competent opposition”

“Who will speak for liberal Britain?” It’s the question which is shaping our politics, and which the provocative front page of this week’s New Statesman posed. The collapse of the Labour Party as an effective opposition, it posited, is spoken of as a self-evident fact. The SNP speak only for Scotland’s interests. The debate which will define British politics in years to come is to be had within the Conservative party. With Theresa May triggering Article 50 last week to usher in a hard Brexit, an effective, scrutinising opposition has never been so necessary—and so absent.

So, one may ask, what of the only party with the word “liberal” in its name? The Liberal Democrats may have just nine MPs, but when I spoke to an energetic Tim Farron a few weeks ago, he was clear on their ambitions to fill the opposition-shaped void.

Does he believe the Lib Dems can speak for the progressive centre of UK politics? “Yes, absolutely. On a personal level I like Jeremy Corbyn, he’s a good guy and sticks to his principles. But his catastrophic leadership of the Labour party means that they are currently providing no opposition whatsoever to this nationalist government’s desire to force a hard-Brexit on this country.

“The Labour leadership wrote a blank cheque to the Conservative government on Brexit when they forced the vast majority of their MPs to vote with the Government (to trigger Article 50 in February). I believe that history will judge them harshly for their failure to stand firm in defence of future generations of Britons who will suffer as a result.

“This is the very moment that the country needed a bold and competent opposition.”

Can the Lib Dems provide it? Faced with the weakness of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, many have called for a “progressive alliance” to take on the Conservatives. In fact Farron, despite previously labelling Jeremy Corbyn as “spineless”, “incompetent” and “toxic”, has called for a new consensus of “progressives working together”.

“During the referendum, I really enjoyed spending time campaigning with progressives in other parties,” Farron tells me. “There are many of us with much more in common than what divides us.” He cites the Green Party leader Caroline Lucas’ decision to endorse Sarah Olney, the Lib Dem candidate, in the Richmond Park by-election. Olney went on to overturn Zac Goldsmith’s 23,000 Conservative majority.

For Farron, finding new alliances is one of his imminent priorities. He says how he is “deeply concerned that as things stand, with the situation in the Labour Party, that we could now be landed with a Conservative government for a generation unless an attractive, strong and united progressive alternative can be presented.”

He says he is aware of “conversations happening in constituencies between different groups.” And beyond this, reports are surfacing of talks between Lib Dem staff and Conservative and Labour moderates. Last week, Anna Soubry said she would consider joining a new “moderate, sensible, forward thinking” party.

Farron says he plans to “work alongside people who share many of our values, who are progressives, who want a Britain that is both successful and fair, who want the UK to be at the heart of Europe. The form of any cooperation is yet to be clear, but I am determined that there should be cross party conversations that could lead to this kind of cooperation and hopefully prevent a conservative hegemony in this country lasting many, many years.”

Yet if opinion polls are to be believed, such a progressive pact of Labour, Liberals and Greens would do little to shift the debate which is currently taking place between the centre-right and far-right. A recent poll showed the combined total of the UK’s centre-left and left comes to little over 40%, while the Tories and UKIP would gain 57% of the vote.

It is perhaps for this reason that Farron sees the grassroots mobilisation of a new movement as his other main objective. “My contribution to this must be to build the Liberal Democrats so that we can ensure that this movement comes about.” He thinks they are making “good progress” on this front. Indeed, a post-Brexit bounce may be fuelling projections which suggest the Lib Dems will win 100 council seats in local elections next month.

Galvanizing the Liberal Democrats’ brand—still bruised and hollowed-out from their years in coalition—must surely be an essential priority for any electoral success. Amongst students, the issue of tuition fees (which Farron himself voted against), continues to fracture the potential for any broad-based support.

Does Farron believe it is possible to win back their support? “Yes, and it’s already happening. Our party membership has grown by over 33,000 since last June, and many of these new members are young people and students.”

He believes that Europe has changed everything, and sees it providing the possibility for a revival. “As you know 18 to 24 year olds voted overwhelmingly in favour of Remain last June. It is you, the youth of Britain, who will have to live with the fateful consequences of this Government’s choice to pursue a hard Brexit more than anybody in Parliament or the Government front bench.

“Students understand that the Lib Dems won’t accept the damage that this course of action will do to the future of young people in this country.”

But Farron is wary of becoming defined as a solely pro-EU party. “Students like our progressive stance on other issues important to them, such as mental health, climate change and welcoming refugees into the country”, he adds.

Farron says he “wholeheartedly supports” the findings of the Higher Education Policy Institute’s recent report on university students’ mental health. He suggests increased funding for counselling services, changes to allow students to register with a GP in two places, and the provision of necessary materials for staff in regular interaction with students.

“We all need to do more to encourage open conversations about mental health—in universities and elsewhere—to tackle the stigma and encourage more people to seek help.”

The challenges facing self-styled “progressives” like Farron are not unique to Britain. From Democrats in the US to moderate opponents of Putin’s kleptocracy in Russia, liberals are struggling to articulate a narrative which can convince displaced electorates. But gaps in the resurgent nationalism may be appearing. The anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders was seen off in the Dutch elections last month, whilst the centrist French presidential favourite Emmanuel Macron is displaying how liberals can use unconventional structures to take on the far-right.

If opposition to the unexpected post-liberal turn in world politics is giving progressives new unity, Farron is clearly optimistic about this shift. He is firm on how the UK should approach Donald Trump’s “racist and inhumane policies.”

“President Trump appears to have chosen to turn his back on the shared culture of civilisation and tolerance which has underpinned the post-war relationship between the UK and the US,” he says. “We should not be seen to celebrate this or to simply shrug our shoulders about it.”

He offers a chilling condemnation of Theresa May’s apparently welcoming policy towards the US President. “Donald Trump is a successful businessman. In his book ‘The Art of the Deal’ in 1987, he explained that the best time to do a deal is when the other guy is desperate for a deal. It seems very clear to me that having chosen to sever our ties with civilised democracies in Europe our Prime Minister is now desperate for a deal with the USA, irrespective of whether it will do Britain any good and irrespective of whether it will damage Britain’s record of standing up to persecution, racism and tyranny.”

It is obvious from Farron’s words that he believes the necessary base exists for new movements, but how far, or for how long, such a party or grouping could appeal beyond leafy Richmond suburbs remains unclear. Targeting the Remain vote is an understandable short-term tactic for a party with eight MPs, but as the salience of the issue is lost, and the Lib Dems become defined as a pro-EU party, there is little to suggest they could speak as a nationwide opposition. And so, the question remains: who will speak for liberal Britain?

“Britain needs a progressive party that is serious about power and positive about Europe,” Farron says. “Liberal Democrats are ready to take up the mantle.” We will see.

‘Logan’: his heart is bigger than his bite

Charles Britton
-
0
‘Logan’: his heart is bigger than his bite

As a self-confessed Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) fanboy, I had previously consigned myself to ignoring anything produced by Twentieth Century Fox which did not feature a certain Ryan Reynolds. Imagine my surprise when, after a maligned first attempt and a mediocre sequel, the final Wolverine film surpassed all my expectations and made me reconsider what a superhero film could be. Logan is a fitting conclusion to the tale of the mutant mascot, and though it relishes in gory extravagance, it balances this with a compelling and heart-wrenching story, one which elevates it from a violent romp to an emotional marvel.

The year is 2029 and, since the X-Men have disbanded, the titular Logan has fallen into decrepitude, caring for a similarly ailing Charles Xavier (with Patrick Stewart reprising the role) in an obscure region of Mexico. As Logan’s remaining strength decays, he is pursued by a stranger who pleads with him to take a lone mutant girl to the Canadian border. What ensues is a perilous road trip with a corrupt private organisation bent on weaponizing infant mutants ruthlessly stalking the trio.

To synopsise Logan in such a way is, to some extent, to do it an injustice. The film is steeped in a gritty atmosphere, from the makeup artist’s uncanny ability to make even Hugh Jackman look downright terrible, to the frequent brutal murders, from the dark filters to the close-up shots of people looking tormented every couple of minutes; the tone is oppressive, and makes a pleasant change from the more laid-back attitude of Disney’s MCU.

For all of Logan’s grittiness, however, it still manages to punctuate its story with frequent comic and touching moments. As a testament to Jackman’s nuanced performance, one scene where Logan experiences a taste of family life is particularly noteworthy and was so well-executed that it had me close to tears.

The Wolverine’s swansong is not without its own flaws, however. The villains in the film are uninspired to say the least, serving purely as adequately threatening fodder for Logan to slash his way through and as a catalyst for his character development. Shaky camera angles in some action sequences mar close-quarters combat encounters, muddying the detail. The MCU films handle this better, which is impressive considering how CGI-intensive they are by comparison. Finally, the structure and pacing of the narrative is formulaic and quickly becomes predictable: I learned to expect armoured vehicles to arrive out of nowhere for an obligatory action set-piece if there had been a lull for more than ten minutes.

Undoubtedly, Logan’s greatest quality for me was that, at times, I completely forgot I was watching a superhero film. I was so enchanted by the poignant storytelling that I forgot that this was a film about a man with claws and regenerative abilities tearing up faceless military types. Instead, I was watching a cynical, tortured character develop into a father figure, overcoming all odds to protect those he loves. As the simple title suggests, Logan is the raw, stripped-back tale of a flawed man.

Overall, Logan represents a bold move in superhero cinema. By acknowledging that Jackman’s portrayal of Wolverine inevitably had to end, Logan is allowed to grapple with themes of mortality, ageing, family, and identity. In a world where the MCU’s momentum is guaranteed by seemingly endless contract deals, origin stories, and crossover spectacles, Logan is brave enough to end an era in style. It is an intimate character study which champions the idea of fighting for something, even if that something does not seem real, for the people one loves. With how remarkably that message is presented here, it could not be more potent. In fact, Logan might just be one of the greatest ‘superhero’ films of all time.

A quarter of Jewish students fear anti-Semitic hate crime, NUS report finds

Jack Hunter
-
0
A quarter of Jewish students fear anti-Semitic hate crime, NUS report finds

A quarter of Jewish students in the UK fear anti-Semitic hate crime on campus, a new study has found.

A report released by the National Union of Students (NUS) found that 26 per cent of Jewish students were either fairly worried or very worried about being subjected to a physical attack, property damage, verbal abuse or theft as a result of their belief.

Almost two-thirds of Jewish students had not been the victim of crime at their place of study, but two thirds (66 per cent) said they believed they were targeted a result of their faith.

28 per cent of students said they had received personal abuse over social media.

However, the report found that a majority of Jewish students do not believe the NUS would respond appropriately to allegations of anti-Semitism if they arose. The NUS must “regain the trust of Jewish students”, the report concluded.

It comes amid ongoing concerns over allegations of anti-Semitism within the NUS.

The organisation’s president, Malia Bouattia, was recently denounced for “outright racism” by the Home Affairs Select Committee, after describing Birmingham University as a “zionist outpost”.

Bouattia has denied claims of anti-Semitism but apologised for any offence caused.

The report also raised concern that “Jewish students have reported that they do not feel their institution understands their needs.”

42 per cent of students reported there was no kosher food on or near campus, while 59 per cent said their university did not avoid scheduling classes and exams during Sabbath and Jewish religious festivals.

Almost half of students said they did not feel comfortable voicing their opinions on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Oxford University Jewish Society (JSoc) welcomed the report, and urged the University and OUSU to adopt its recommendations.

In a statement to Cherwell, JSoc said: “We are proud that Oxford is one of the best campuses in the country for Jewish students; there is a thriving Jewish life, a fact which has been recognised by both OUSU and the UJS (Union of Jewish Students) in recent years.

“We are thankful for the positive relationships with the University, the colleges and OUSU, and are hopeful that these will continue.

“However, many of the concerns in the report resonate with the Jewish Society’s members and, alongside recent events, demonstrate that more can be done to improve the Jewish student experience.

“In particular, Jewish students regularly encounter hostility and offensive debate when engaging in discussions around the Israel-Palestine conflict. Jewish students have also faced difficulties regarding the provision of kosher food and the scheduling of exams on religious festivals.

“We call upon OUSU to adopt the report’s recommendations, and to continue their effort to make Oxford more welcoming for Jewish students.”

The report also explored Jewish student representation in university student unions.

It found that a majority of Jewish students feel able to engage with their individual student unions, with 75 per cent saying that they voted in student elections and 69 per cent saying that they always or usually were able to participate in student union societies.

However, 43 per cent said they did not feel their student union understood their needs as Jewish students, and 51 per cent said they did not feel represented by their student union.

Sandy Downs, OUSU VP for Welfare and Equal Opportunities, said: “It’s fantastic to see that Jewish students have high engagement with their students’ unions across the country, and we should be using that relationship to help affect change.

“I look forward to working with JSOC and the NUS to consider how best to interpret and enact the recommendations in the report, and its good to see that lots of the suggestions are things which OUSU is already working on (including Kosher food provision and religious festival considerations in timetabling).”

The report’s author, the NUS VP Rob Young, said: “In a wider context of increasing anti-Semitism across the UK, we know that Jewish students have been feeling increasingly uncomfortable on University campuses and that there is a lot of work to be done to change that.

“This research has given us a greater understanding of some of the challenges faced by Jewish students in Universities and in the student movement. I hope that the sector will act on the recommendations in this report.

“Everyone should feel able to participate fully in campus life and NUS and I are fully committed to ensuring that that is the case.”

An Oxford University spokesperson said: “We welcome the NUS report and are encouraged to hear that so many Jewish students across the UK are actively engaged in university life, and that Oxford’s JSoc values its positive relationship with the University. We are working with colleges to address specific issues mentioned in the report, such as the provision of kosher food and the scheduling of exams.

“On the subject of hostility and antisemitism, we have always made it clear that no form of harassment or victimisation will be tolerated at Oxford. We expect all members of the University community to treat each other with respect, courtesy and consideration, including when engaging in political debate.

“We would strongly urge anyone who has experienced harassment or intimidation on the grounds of religion or belief to come forward and report any incident to their college or to the University.”

1...996997998...2,612Page 997 of 2,612