Monday 7th July 2025
Blog Page 521

Bernie Sanders’ brother campaigns in Oxford

0

As Bernie Sanders ran out winner at the New Hampshire primaries on Tuesday, his brother Larry Sanders held an event encouraging Americans living abroad to vote for the Democratic frontrunner in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary.

The event took place as Democrats voted Bernie top of the popular vote in the New England state. Larry was keen to talk up the significance of Bernie’s success so far in the primary campaign, “Bernard’s candidacy is a moment in history that represents a fundamental shift in American politics.”

“The movement behind him is unparalleled in modern political history and I hope that Americans living overseas take this opportunity to make their voices heard and vote in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary.”

The Primary itself will begin on Tuesday 3rd March, known colloquially in the U.S as ‘Super Tuesday’, as 14 states go to the polls.

It will run for a week, until Tuesday 10th March. Larry spoke alongside Oxford city councillor Hosnieh DjafariMarbin and the Labour Party’s national Green Deal campaign founder Aliya Yule.

He himself was a city councillor for the Green Party in Oxford for 8 years, and ran as the Green Party candidate in Oxford East in 2018.

He is also the Green Party health and social care spokesperson. Not straying from his typically environmental focus, Larry went on to speak about the Green New Deal and the ecological focus of the 2020 election.

As well as Sanders decrying Big Oil, stating “the oil and gas people have known for decades what they’ve been doing to the world”, his accompanying speakers stressed the severity of the situation.

Yule noted that even the GND served the profit agendas of fossil fuel companies, and did not address the nearing “10 year” deadline to stop ecological breakdown.

Whilst he has settled in the UK for decades, he has been speaking out in favour of his brother’s candidacy in the past few weeks, attending campaign events across the UK and Europe.

Currently, he has attended or is planning to attend events in London, Paris, Oxford, Edinburgh and St Andrews.

Larry has also attracted media attention in recent weeks, partly for his criticism of Hillary Clinton in the wake of a recent documentary in which her criticism of his brother gathered media attention.

He told The Independent this week, “I think Mrs Clinton had started with a good heart, started with principles and sold them out for political power. And she’s angry and bitter at somebody who stuck by his principles.”

Preview: Hero-Man

0

How flawed are the moral dynamics in children’s superhero cartoons, and can we critique them through the medium of rock opera? These are the questions which new student-written musical Hero-Man: Champion of Justice aims to answer, co-directed by Lowri Spear and Raymond Douglas and premiering at the BT Studio this week.

From its tightly choreographed opening number, Hero-Man’s Theme, the show attempts to break down and expose the limits of superhero morality; the eponymous hero, portrayed by Reef Ronel, is immediately described in the song in hagiographic terms as ‘courageous and relentless’ and a ‘defender of the helpless’, and is placed in stark good-evil opposition to Joel Fernandez’s comically villainous Reklaw – this clearly delineated morality will inevitably become more blurred and corrupted as the show moves towards its deeply ambiguous conclusion. It soon becomes apparent that the show’s riffing on the tropes and mythology of the superhero genre is more important than its actual plot; the story itself appears to revolve around conflicts over several elaborately described gadgets and alliances which shift very rapidly given the show’s 45-minute runtime, but the satire is tight enough and the music (composed by Douglas, Spear and musical director Nicholas Heymann) sufficiently bombastic that the perhaps unnecessarily convoluted plot shouldn’t faze audiences. 

Every familiar aspect of this particular genre of children’s television is satirised – there are the hollow motivational statements (‘nothing is stronger than the power of belief’), and a fourth-wall-breaking awareness of the limits of episodic TV when Hero-Man laments to his sidekicks that even though ‘every week we catch him’, they will still have to come back the following week to catch Reklaw again. Moreover, not only does every character unabashedly fit an archetype from the superhero genre, they also seem gleefully aware of the role they fill in the narrative; Tim (Martin Lindill), Hero-Man’s trusty sidekick along with Zap the Dog (Sarah Davies), proclaims proudly that he is ‘just plucky comic relief’. This type of satire serves both to revisit a genre that is nostalgic for many people and to critique its simplistic tropes and approach to morality, but the character of Sinep (Sophia Heller), a cunning female villain who seduces her way into Hero-Man’s secret control room, was where this reviewer felt that the satire could have been better thought out. The idea that a cunning and sexually attractive woman can be a hero’s undoing rests squarely in the misogynistic assumption that female sexuality is equivalent to destruction; it would therefore have been pleasing if the writers had fleshed out Sinep as a character and used her to probe and question the femme fatale archetype rather than just playing it straight. This being said, Sinep’s solo, Sinep’s Theme, was beautifully sung by Heller and its lyrics had some interesting insights into the loneliness and loss of individuality inherent in becoming a hero.

Though Hero-Man could have simplified its storyline and refined its satire in certain areas, ultimately it serves as an interesting opportunity to revisit tropes from childhood with a critical gaze, and to probe more broadly ideas about moralising media and about what it means to be good and evil.

Radical Reshuffle: Cummings Takes Back Control

0

To a casual observer reading the past few days’ headlines, the contents of Boris Johnson’s reshuffle of his government would have come as something of a shock. Faced with the daily microscopic analysis of press releases, gossip and policy announcements, one would have been left with the impression that Dominic Cummings faced a potential dramatic loss of influence. Often touted as a Durham-derived Machiavelli, the former head of Vote Leave has been a controversial core of Johnson’s operation since Day 1, acting as his main advisor. But gossip regarding the political and household dynamics of Number 10 (Carrie vs Cummings), the planned limited integration of Huawei into the UKs telecommunications system and the go-ahead to HS2 – all projects opposed by Cummings – were all taken to mean his power was waning.

Then we had the reshuffle. It had Cummings’ fingerprints all over it. Sajid Javid quit as Chancellor rather than merge his special advisor team with Number 10’s, losing most of his allies in the process at the expense of empowering Cummings.

This is where focussing overly on the minutae of characters such as Cummings, fascinating though he is, is so downright dangerous. Although widely judged as the evil genius of Whitehall, he is (an albeit influential) part of a wider Government. What this reshuffle can tell us that this is just the beginning for this newly formed government. With a Parliamentary majority of 80 and a Labour Party in the throes of a leadership struggle, it is determined to blast as many shots as it can into an open goal.  

These events also demonstrate quite clearly a further consolidation of power at the top of government. The Prime Minister is not content with the model of first among equals, but as the clear head of Government, patron over a cabinet of allies and political clients. The major offices of state – Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, as well as the Prime Minister – are now headed by Brexiteers of a stripe close to that of Boris. It is a far cry from the four Remainers in place in the death throes of Mrs May’s era. Cummings is far from powerless and has indeed gained his wish in controlling the corps of special advisors around Government.

And looking at the selection of Suella Braverman, Jeremy Wright and the recent noises made about forthcoming White Papers and reviews into the BBC and the constitution, it looks to be a government with very specific aims. After ‘Taking back control’ from Brussels, the attention has now been focussed on another front not yet conquered by the right, the field of culture. A casual flick through the editorial position and main articles of The Telegraph and  The Spectator show a long-standing obsession on the part of the right with the perceived ‘left wing liberal snowflake’ culture of the BBC and ‘the youth’. Boris, by the way, made his name at The Telegraph and used to edit The Spectator. Who’d have thought it?

What this episode also shows is how the daily chattering of the political commentariat are now running up a collection of failed predictions. How ‘close’ Labour were to winning the 2017 election, how Corbyn was ‘on-track’ to narrow the gap at the 2019 election. All of these share a lack of long-term focus. For someone who has been credited as the architect of ‘Vote-Leave’ and has been touted as a ‘genius’ by the Prime Minister – it is hard to believe Cummings would lose his influence so easily. It seems yet another instance of obsessing over the daily stories and office politics, to wish into existence a dysfunctional Government, and by extension an easier opponent for a resurgent Labour party to defeat come the next election. Former Prime Minister George Canning may have said he wished people would focus more on the men of government than the measures they suggested, but in the case of our current media class, maybe a bit less on personalities would be worthwhile.

I won’t suggest that the Labour party are doomed to another 10 years in opposition, or that we are faced with a daily deluge of ‘fake news’ or incompetent reporting. What is needed is a dose of realism and taking of a longer view. Compared to the assuredness of Johnson, a Labour Party with a leadership still headed by the people who were architects of Labour’s colossal electoral defeat does seem to make a Labour government a far-away prospect. What is needed, if Labour wants to see itself back in power in the decade, is for it to work out why Johnson’s Tories have been so successful and imitate accordingly. It worked for Tony Blair and Mrs Thatcher; does Labour really pride ideological purity at the expense of endless Tory rule? They need to remember how to be an effective opposition, supporting the government where it’s popular and attacking them it isn’t.

The past 5 years have seen an abdication on the part of Labour as the Party of Opposition. For all the soundbites on austerity, as far as the public is concerned, the only things to remember are Jeremy Corbyn’s shambolic performances at PMQs, a long-drawn-out anti-Semitism crisis and a Leadership office interested in deselecting its own existing MPs. A sober, long term view could be the first steps back into returning to government. Rather than making the latest pitch for a ‘Green Industrial Revolution’, the focus should be on the sort of easy to remember policies that Boris repeated ad infiniutm at the election.

All is not lost. During the Coalition, following the successful launch of Free Schools and an all-out assault on ‘the blob’, Cummings simply resigned. The cause cited is the ignoring of his proposition for scrapping GCSEs as a qualification. In the stretch of four years, tempers fray, political calculations and strategic alliances shift. Who knows what can happen, especially with a man who has no interest in being convivial? But rather than wishing this into existence, what is needed now more than ever is an effective opposition and critical commentary. Rather than focussing on the individual, the best defence against a seemingly entrenched Government is time, clear organisation and useful critique. Wishful thinking will only breed more defeats.

Preview: Pleading Stupidity

0

As Storm Dennis raged, I wondered if it was strictly necessary that I went to the preview of Pleading Stupidity.It was a whole six minutes’ walk away. But, eventually, I chose to face the wind and rain and do my duty. Thank goodness I did because staying in would have been a far more stupid choice than any decision in the play.

While Brad (Barney Newman) and Chad (James Akka) were on their gap year from Oz, they made the… bold choice to rob a bank at pseudo-gunpoint. They also made the even bolder decision to wear name tags from work while doing so. Shockingly, they’re on trial. Now, this might sound like a grand spoiler, but this is all revealed in the first minute as the Prosecution (Ellie Cooper) outlines their crime. The Defence (Gemma Daubeney) argues that they simply are too stupid to face harsh consequences. A fluid narrative then pulls us between the trial and the boys’ time in Vail, Colorado.  A minimalistic set is advantageously used for these narrative jumps; witness boxes are slid around the stage to become whatever the plot requires. The audience is addressed as judge and jury but, don’t fear, it won’t be a night of agonising moral dilemmas. Instead, it’s funny, fast-paced and a fantastic night.

The references are firmly of their time – Point Breakand Blockbuster. iPods are innovative rather than retro. Ferraris, not Teslas, are the car of choice. Goon, drongos and Shannon Noll also feature. It’s quite the Australian education. There are also some brilliant one-liners, too explicit to place in print but making a significant impression. Pens on chains, Mormonism and ‘exciting B-plots’ all come under fire.

There are a lot of characters in Pleading Stupidity but few actors. Their ability to multirole is a tribute to their skill, vocally and physically. By the end, it was a shock to hear Barney Newman slip out of an Australian accent. Although some accents aren’t fully polished yet, this appears to be deliberate experimentation rather than confusion. Ellie Cooper and Gemma Daubeney flip between characters with astonishing ease. It’s their constant variation which accommodates the narrative. As Jenny and Laura, they provide a beat of pathos within the otherwise breakneck-speed performance. They then suddenly flip into boisterous comedy as Agents Bear and Jones (their history together is a sit-com waiting to happen).

James Akka is relentlessly funny as Chad, making all the wrong choices in the best possible ways, then switching into the useless police officer MacPherson so swiftly that I had a second where I thought Chad was impersonating him. Barney Newman, as Brad, is thoughtless and comic, wobbling on the edge of doubt and then firmly throwing himself over the edge with more aplomb than Chad.

If Pleading Stupidity is this good already, then I can’t imagine what it’ll be like on opening night. I’m already pleading with my friends to see it.

Tinder? I hardly know her

0

2:30AM. You’ve left Bridge before closing. Some reptilian part of your VK-addled brain sparks up and before you know it, you’re in bed swiping left on the eighth person whose ‘tall, if it matters’, and swiping right on someone just to exercise some other muscle group in your thumb. Of course, that happens to be the one person you match with that evening. Your eyes roll, and you’re immediately met with the race to un-match before you get hit with some variety on ‘hey, seeing as we’re both up…’

There is something about spending time on Tinder (other dating apps are available) that feels akin to awkward, sexually charged eye contact on the District Line. The moments/hours/days between the millisecond dopamine rush and the first message being sent leaves you in an odd limbo where you both know you’re equally interested/bored/drunk, but not quite enough to actually engage in conversation. If you finally do take the plunge and decide to talk to each other, the vast majority of conversations take one of two routes:

‘Hey’
‘Hey’
‘How you doing?’
‘Ahaha is that a Friends reference’
‘yh ahah’

Or, perhaps more entertainingly,

‘I would love to suck your toes.’

This is not to say Tinder is always the technological equivalent of taking someone home after a club night just to look in the mirror and ignore them whilst they sit awkwardly at your kitchen table, but slowly that Black Mirror episode where Bryce Dallas Howard gets arrested for the human equivalent of a low Yelp review seems to make sense the fifth time someone opens with the James Franco wink gif. At least ‘lucky for you I’m a pervert’ was an original conversation starter. And just like a club night, the urge to shower is overwhelming and you’re probably disappointing your parents. Swiping on Tinder feels like an acceptance that you’re bypassing any kind of slow blossoming genuine connection– no one writes songs about being superliked by Chris, 25, Brookes Uni.

So then when you’re standing outside the tube station, somehow recalling every single sex trafficking story ever reported, thinking back to a more innocent time where only silly people got into strangers’ cars,  you catch the eye of the collection of photos you’ve been chatting to walk towards you and in a weird uncanny valley moment realise this is a complete stranger you’ve been talking to for three weeks. Only then does it cross your mind that those photos were probably picked for good reason, and their height definitely does matter. Do you hug? Shake hands? Fist (bump)? They’re paying, right?

At the risk of mixing modern-day metaphors, we’re able to treat people in the same way we treat a box set of Killing Eve. It’s on-demand attention where you can, quite literally, turn people off. The ghost in the machine has a name, and it’s Molly, 22, Beautician. So why not delete it? Why not, you know, leave the house? Get out a bit? Firstly, at least it’s not meth, but secondly, there’s perhaps something reassuring about such a vast group of people all choosing to download an app that we can collectively agree is basically a technological purgatory where lost souls wait around for something better to happen. If one extreme of social media is seeing someone from the year above you in primary school get engaged on Instagram whilst you’re still shimmying away from a nonce on the Park End cheese floor, the other is on Tinder, where we’re all just shimmying away from toe-suckers and hoping we’ll bump into someone who knows how to use deodorant.

A brief translator’s guide to Tinder:

“6’0”, because apparently that matters”
I’m 5’10” and bitter.

“Why match and not message?”
I’ll message you “hey” eight times at 3:30am, then call you a slut when you don’t reply.

“Send memes”
Send nudes.

“Your mum will love me.”
She won’t.

“Sesh-head”
I smell like dark fruits.

“New to this.”
I’m 57 years old and hang about at clubs.

“Not on here much, add me on Instagram.”
I’m not actually a human being.

“Dark sense of humour.”
Racist.

UCU Strikes: What you need to know

0

The University and Colleges Union will begin strikes again this Thursday, Cherwell is here to tell you everything you need to know.

When are strikes taking place?

The UCU has announced 14 weekdays of strikes, but action will be spread out over the course of 23 days. Striking days will be grouped into three clusters and escalate in length during the 23 days. 

Cluster 1: Thursday of 5th week – Wednesday of 6th week (4 working days)

Cluster 2: Monday of 7th week – Thursday of 7th week (4 working days)

Cluster 3: Monday of 8th week – Friday of 8th week (5 working days)

Who is striking?

The University and Colleges Union is organising and participating in the strikes. The UCU is a trade union which represents those employed in higher education. This means that union represents casualised researchers and teaching staff, “permanent” lecturers and academic-related professional services staff. Any employee of the university who falls under one of these categories and is a member of the UCU is eligible to participate in the upcoming strikes.

It is unclear how wide-ranging strikes will be this year, and exactly how many lecturers intend to strike. Although all UCU members have the right to strike, whether to strike or not is left to the discretion of the individual. Cherwell understands that approximately 50% of the Oxford UCU branch turned out to vote in the strike ballot. Of those, around 75% voted in favour of action, meaning that around 38% of Oxford UCU members have returned a vote to strike.

As of October 2019, Oxford’s branch of the UCU had 1,225 members.

Information distributed by the University has made it clear that they expect the majority of teaching to go unaffected.

How will it affect me?

The most tangible effects for students will be the cancellation of some lectures, labs, and other teaching organised by the central University and its faculties. Students will be notified beforehand if any events are cancelled. Oxford has also said that it will attempt to reschedule any teaching which is affected by the action.

Further, the UCU has encouraged its members to take action short of a strike. This involves working strictly to contract, not catching up on work missed due to work, not covering for absent colleagues, not undertaking any voluntary activities, and a marking and assessment boycott. Action short of a strike is unlikely to drastically impact the quality of teaching but may mean academics becoming stricter with the work they will carry out for the university. The marking and assessment boycott means that academics may elect not to participate in the marking or moderation of university-level examinations.

Teaching in college will go unaffected. Tutorials and classes should go on, and collections and internal examinations will be undertaken as normal.

Why are academics striking?

Members of the UCU are striking this term over two separate disputes. One relates to the University, and the other to the higher education pensions’ provider: the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS).

Dispute with Universities

The UCU’s dispute with universities covers pay, equality, casualisation, and workloads.

The Union has alleged that higher education employees’ retail price index (RPI) inflation-adjusted pay has fallen by around 20% since 2009. This figure stands at odds with calculations made by the University and Colleges Employers’ Association which puts the pay reduction since 2009 between 1.5% (CPIH inflation-adjusted pay for junior university staff) and 17% (RPI inflation-adjusted pay for senior university staff).

Negotiations with the UCEA, which represents universities in negotiations, on the current dispute began in March 2019. 

Most recently, the UCEA submitted an offer to the UCU in January which details the concessions universities are currently willing to make. The offer includes a 1.8% pay increase for staff, which the UCU says “fails to keep up with the cost of living.” The offer also includes measures to address the gender pay gap, expecting universities to work with trade unions to address disparities. It also encourages universities to move staff currently employed on casual or fixed-term contracts onto indefinite contracts, and encourages institutions to investigate ways to ensure that demands placed on university staff are achievable.

Currently, UCU negotiators have made it clear that they do not believe that this latest offer represents the best deal which could be achieved for members, although both parties agree that significant progress has been made on the dispute.

Dispute with the USS

Union members have also raised a dispute concerning the sustainability of the universities’ pensions scheme.

The dispute has been slower to negotiate, as the UCU argues that the current pensions pot has been undervalued, and members are currently being asked to increase contributions to the scheme while receiving less in their retirement.

According to the UCU, changes which have been made to the USS have meant that an average member will pay £40,000 extra into their pension but receive £200,000 less in their retirement.

The USS argues that the scheme “faces a challenging environment in which the costs of funding high-quality defined benefits have increased.”

This dispute also involves Universities UK, representing universities in the pensions dispute. According to UUK, employers have agreed to cover 65% of the increased costs to the USS. The body has expressed dismay at the decision taken by the UCU committing to further strike action.

Where will the strikes take place?

Strikes will take place outside six locations in Oxford:

  • Clarendon Building, Broad Street
  • Examinations Schools, High Street
  • Science Area South, South Parks Road
  • Science Area North, Parks Road
  • Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road
  • The Old Road Campus Research Building, Roosevelt Drive

Picket lines will form at around 8:30 am.

There will also be a rally outside the Clarendon Building on Broad Street at 12 pm on Thursday 20th February (Thursday of 5th). Speakers at the event will include the president of Oxford Students’ Union.

Should I cross a picket line?

Striking members cannot stop students from crossing picket lines, and decisions to attend lectures must be made by an individual. However, Oxford Students’ Union encouraged students not to cross picket lines during the strikes in November 2019, citing that “we have a responsibility to support this upcoming strike.”

It also encouraged Oxford students to participate in “solidarity action.”

Can I seek financial compensation for lost teaching time?

Oxford has made it clear that they intend to put alternative arrangements in place to minimise disruption during the strikes. They will not be issuing compensation to students.

However, if alternative arrangements have been inadequate, students may complain to the University.

Will the strikes end after this term?

If the UCU is able to find resolution with universities and the USS, strikes will cease. However, the Union has made it clear that they are willing to take further industrial action until the end of the academic year if sufficient progress is not made. For many universities, this will require a re-balloting of members, since strike ballots are only valid for 6 months. At Oxford, the current strike mandate lasts until July, since the most recent ballot was returned in January this year.

What have the relevant parties said about the strikes?

Cherwell asked the UCU, Oxford University, the Universities Superannuation Scheme, Universities UK and the Universities and Colleges Employers Association for comment regarding the most recent round of strikes. Their responses are as follows.

Oxford UCU

“UCU has just announced 14 days of strike action, starting on the 20th of February, for both the USS pensions and the pay & equality disputes. Oxford will now also be joining the USS action after a successful re-ballot, in addition to the pay & equality dispute which we took part in last term. While we have seen important steps in engagement, with employers being prepared to discuss issues that were previously off the table as a result of the first round of strike action, they have failed to make serious commitments in either dispute so far. We have 17 days between now and then, and very much hope that UUK and UCEA will at last come to us with a serious offers on the two disputes. UCUs HEC will meet on the 14th of February to consider any offers that may be on the table between now and then, and we will of course be following developments closely. We do not want to resort to strike action but we are prepared and determined to do so if necessary”

Jo Grady (UCU General Secretary)

“We have seen more members back strikes since the winter walkouts and this next wave of action will affect even more universities and students. If universities want to avoid further disruption they need to deal with rising pension costs, and address the problems over pay and conditions.

“We have been clear from the outset that we would take serious and sustained industrial action if that was what was needed. As well as the strikes starting later this month, we are going to ballot members to ensure that we have a fresh mandate for further action to cover the rest of the academic year if these disputes are not resolved.”

Oxford University

“The University is disappointed with the outcome of the Oxford UCU ballot in favour of industrial action over USS pensions. We understand the concerns many staff have on pensions, as well as on pay. We also have a duty to ensure our education and research activities continue as far as possible and will therefore have contingency plans in place to minimise the impact of any industrial action on staff, students and visitors.”

USS

“We recognise the difficulties in levying higher contributions but USS, along with all similar pension schemes, faces a challenging environment in which the costs of funding high-quality defined benefits have increased.

“We will be revisiting these issues over the coming months under the 2020 valuation and are committed to working with Higher Education employers to build a secure financial future for our members and their families.”

UUK

“We regret that UCU are planning further strike action at a time when positive talks on the future of the scheme are making significant progress and are ongoing. Despite this, UCU continue to request that employers pay still higher contributions at unaffordable levels.

“By law, pension costs had to rise to maintain current benefits. Employers have agreed to cover 65% of these increased costs, taking their contribution to 21.1% of salaries from October 2019 – together committing £250m more a year. Members have been asked to make a fair contribution too.

“The best way forward is to work collectively to secure a pension scheme that is highly valued and affordable for all. The current tripartite talks between UCU, USS, and UUK, which are set to continue at least until March, are building a shared understanding on the future of the scheme, jointly developing governance reforms and considering alternative pathways for the 2020 valuation.

“Universities will put in place a series of measures to minimise the impact of industrial action on students, other staff and the wider community.”

UCEA

“We are dismayed, and many HE institutions will be so too, to see UCU’s HEC decide to ask the union’s members to once again use damaging strike action over last year’s national pay demands. Strike action should always be a last resort and we believe that UCU’s 70,000 members in the 147 institutions should now be given a say. There are new ways forward being offered by HE employers – UCEA has made available significant positive proposals on key issues in UCU’s dispute – contractual arrangements, workload / mental health and gender pay gaps / ethnicity pay – developed following two months of talks with UCU. Strikes in less than half the universities in the multi-employer negotiations are not the answer and are in real danger of undermining the national collective pay bargaining arrangements. 

“UCEA has proactively and formally consulted its members in developing our significant new proposals as we can only move with the consensus of our members. UCU members deserve a chance to have their voices heard as to how they feel about the progress that has been made and whether they want to choose an alternative to further disruptive action.”

An Ode to Trixie Mattel

0

If someone were to bring up ‘drag music’, the likelihood is that your first thought would sound a little something like 2:30am on a Plush Tuesday. Whether it be the all-familiar refrain of RuPaul’s ‘Sissy that Walk’ or the dulcet tones of your favourite local queen’s rendition of ‘Man! I Feel Like a Woman’, there’s a certain sound that tends to be almost synonymous with drag.

Most people’s mental image wouldn’t necessarily be a self-proclaimed ‘backwoods barbie’, complete with heartfelt lyrics and autoharp-driven melodies to match, or at least not until recently. Shot from relative Milwaukee fame to worldwide drag superstardom almost overnight, Trixie Mattel is known for doing just that.

Now three albums and nearly two million Instagram followers deep, Mattel gained a reputation after appearing on season seven of RuPaul’s Drag Race and subsequently winning season two of the ‘All Stars’ edition in 2015 and 2018 respectively. Known for her exaggerated take on Barbie’s signature look (hence the ‘Mattel’) and witty improvisational humour, she won hearts, a successful web show with best friend and creative partner Katya, and a modest $100,000. Whilst a considerable amount was spent on refining her drag, she funnelled the rest into her drag-meets-country-music passion project.

Her first EP, Two Birds, was released in 2017 – a six-track collection of songs touching on classic country tropes such as marriage, hometowns, and the trials and tribulations of getting into full drag on the road. At the time, it was a far cry from what her newly-found Drag Race fans knew her for. Whilst she did dabble in music in season seven, this was in a theatrical parody of John Waters’ Pink Flamingos – not quite doing justice to the extent of Mattel’s talents. Instead, she showcased a genuine and tender component to her voice and image alike, previously masked by the seven stacked pairs of 301 lashes.

In interviews around the time of the release of Two Birds, Mattel was candid about how the process of writing her lyrics differed from her usual stand-up routines. Talking about track three, ‘I Know You All over Again’, she shared how she’d go from telling jokes on stage about her time on Drag Race, to drinking alone at her hotel bar and openly sobbing whilst writing lyrics. She talks of the fallout of a break-up with autobiographical finesse: “And I don’t call you when I cry/And I don’t stay the day in bed/Mostly I’m fine/Most of the time I get by, like I said.” It’s lyrics like these that showed fans a different side to the larger than life Trixie character that she’d created, letting them in bit by bit to hear the vulnerable voice of Brian Firkus – the man behind the makeup.

The 2018 follow-up to Two Birds – you guessed it – One Stone, only further proved to showcase Mattel’s musical prowess. With lyrics, vocals, and multi-instrumentals provided by Mattel herself, the EP took the #1 spot on the Billboard Heatseekers charts. This served to break not only her music, but modern drag music in general, into the limelight. Premiering on the same night as her season of Drag Race: All Stars, it acted to bridge the gap between Drag Race fans and fans of drag as an art form.

This is not to say that Mattel is the first to do what she’s been doing for drag artists these past few years. Figureheads such as Divine and RuPaul himself undeniably paved the way for Mattel to have the creative freedom to bring drag country music to the masses. The way in which Mattel does it, however, is what makes her art so special. As drag has become more mainstream and commercialised, its flaws as a community have been put under a microscope. RuPaul has been heavily (and rightly) critiqued for his erasure of AFAB (assigned female at birth) performers – who build up a large and fundamental part of the community as a whole. As Drag Race is the main form in which many people see drag, this erasure is damaging to AFAB performers worldwide. Without women, drag would not be what it is, – something that is at the heart of Trixie Mattel’s music and image.

Whilst Firkus is himself a cis, white, gay man, he has put women right to the forefront of just about everything he’s done. Owing his sound to inspirations like Dolly Parton and Kacey Musgraves, he uses his platform to hold women to the highest esteem. Regularly inviting female fans on stage to sing his songs, and writing music “for and about women”, he does so in a way that doesn’t trivialise the female experience as many drag performers tend to do. As a man in a male dominated scene, Mattel brings a refreshing riot grrrl-esque ‘girls to the front’ ethos, embedded in country songs. Whilst much more needs to be done to make the drag community a more inclusive space, Mattel is doing what more performers in her position should be – and sounds pretty great whilst doing it.

Town beat Gown in annual boxing showdown

0

For nearly 150 years the Oxford Union debating chamber has been a place where great minds have clashed in intellectual battles. On one special night every year, however, late in January, it is home to a different sort of battle; one fought with fists rather than words. I am speaking of the Town vs Gown Boxing Show, which took place this year on Saturday 25th January. It is a fitting location for the event, as boxing seems to me to be the physical embodiment of the process of discursive conflict that occurs during a debate. In boxing, as in debating, two opponents go head to head according to a strict set of rules, which ensure a fair fight. The winner is usually selected by the judges who, like the audience of a debate, vote on who displayed greater skill during the bout.

Town vs Gown is organised entirely by the students who make up the committee of Oxford University Amateur Boxing Club. On the night, a team of volunteers from OUABC dedicate their time to help the committee in ensuring that the night runs smoothly. The committee and volunteers did a brilliant job this year and put on a seamless and professional show, consisting of 13 action-packed bouts, which left the distinct impression in the spectators that the tickets were money well spent. 

The show is the second biggest in the OUABC calendar, after the Varsity match against Cambridge, and it is one of the highest attended amateur boxing matches in the whole country (although the annual Women’s Boxing Show, which runs in Michaelmas, is quickly growing in popularity after having been established in 2018). The primary purpose of Town vs Gown is to prepare boxers in the club for the Varsity match by giving them the essential experience of an amateur bout in front of a large crowd. Despite the name of the show, 5 of the bouts were internal, matching 2 OUABC boxers against each other. This was done to ensure that as many OUABC fighters as possible could compete. The Town fighters also came from other areas besides Oxford such as London and Whitley.

Every single boxer, regardless of whether they had started boxing only a few months ago or if they had been training for longer, was a hardened athlete by the night of the show. This is a testament to the determination of the boxers and the dedication and hard work of the coaches, who in mere months mould us students, who often enter the gym more comfortable with books than gloves, into bona fide boxers. Every single boxer deserves a huge amount of credit for having the courage to step into the ring and compete; the enormity of this feat can only be fully appreciated by those who have done the same.

Now, onto the night itself. Before the first bout started, the chamber was tense with anticipation. In preparation for the first bout Lakshmi Manoharan and Paddy Lee, both OUABC fighters, warmed up in the narrow corridor outside. They were nervous, but eager to get into the ring and put their skills to the test. Finally, the wonderful Kaya Axelsson, OUABC Vice President and MC for the first part of the night, announced around 6:15 that the bouts were off to a start. Lakshmi entered into the blue corner and Paddy into the red. The bell dinged and the fight began. The first round was very evenly matched, as both fighters got a feel for each other and got comfortable in the ring. Encouraged by their corner advice, they roared into action in the second and third rounds, with a much higher number of punches coming from both fighters. Lakshmi was the taller fighter and she used her range very well, flicking out her jab and often landing it. Paddy did well to close the distance, however, boxing with her hands high. When she got in close, she was able to land some very effective overhand rights. The fight was well matched, but Lakshmi was able to land more punches through effectively using her range. She won by unanimous decision.

The second bout was also an internal OUABC one, with Andrew Marotta in the red corner and Ryan Fincham in the blue. The first round started, and Andy was able to incorporate some very good right uppercuts in his combinations. He slipped many of Ryan’s shots displaying effective defensive skills. Ryan came back, however, with good combinations of his own, resulting in a very intense third round. Andy slipped and everyone held their breath; would it be judged a knockdown? No, it was clearly a slip, and the referee let the fight go on. Ryan landed some heavy shots resulting in the referee giving Andy a standing 8-count. He beat the count, and came back with shots of his own, so that the bout ended practically mid-punch. The decision went to Ryan, in the red corner.

The third bout, also internal, was between Charlie Sillett in the blue corner and Matthew Proctor in the red. Matthew was the taller fighter, and this can sometimes actually be a disadvantage as if shorter fighter can get in close, he can make it very hard for the taller one to land punches. Matthew, however, did not let this happen, and he started each round explosively landing very powerful punches. Charlie was always able to come back in the second half of the round, showing great fitness and endurance. This bout really was a battle; both fighters had bloody noses by the second round, and in the third they both received standing 8-counts. Charlie, however, was able to come back from his standing 8-count and deliver enough punches that Matthew had 2 standing counts in the third round. Charlie won by split decision.

The next bout was the first true Town vs Gown fight of the night. OUABC boxer David Kim, was in the blue corner, against Chris Ockwell, from Thames Valley ABC, in the red. Chris seemed to be the more experienced fighter, but David did very well in the first round, by landing counter punches as an answer to his opponent’s attacks. In the second round, Chris landed a combination which led to David receiving a standing-8 count; but David came back from the count with a vengeance and ended the round very well. In the third, David received a bloody nose from one of his opponent’s punches, but he hardly seemed to notice and went on fighting. The blood was dripping profusely, however, and so the referee stopped the fight so that the club doctor, Dr Paul, could have a look. The verdict was not good; the bleeding would not stop and so the fight would have to be stopped. David protested and badly wanted to fight on, but the decision was made; the priority is always the safety of the boxers. Gown 0, Town 1.

The fifth bout was between Tom Lousanda from OUABC, and Daniel Stringer from Imperial College Boxing Club. This was a very close and well fought bout from both competitors. There was a lot of clinching throughout, and Daniel got called by the referee for illegally punching from the clinch. The final bell rang with Tom landing a stiff straight right to Daniel’s face. It ended too close to call, but Daniel was declared the winner by split decision. Gown 0, Town 2.

Luka Deekeling (OUABC) and Lucas Marino (Thames Valley ABC) fought in the sixth bout. Lucas, in the red corner, landed a lot of shots on Luka in the first round, and there were fears that the bout may have been a mismatch; Luka completely dispelled these after he beat a standing 8-count in the second. Luka showed his superior fitness by heaping pressure on Lucas in the latter half of the second with relentless combinations, completely exhausting his opponent. By the end of the third round Luka was landing shots at will and he was being clinched constantly by his opponent who looked like he would collapse at any moment. In a very close decision, Lucas Marino in the red corner won, but it honestly could have gone either way. Luka showed great grit and endurance in his comeback. Gown 0, Town 3. At this point, Isra Hale, an OUABC alumna, took over as MC, continuing the brilliant job of hyping the audience that Kaya had started.

The seventh bout was very closely contested between Stan Dumas in the blue corner and Jerome Pringle from Thames Valley ABC in the red corner. Jerome boxed with his hands low, landing quick shots and moving, while Stan stalked him around the ring, landing shots of his own. Stan worked the body very well, slowing his opponent down, before landing more shots upstairs. Jerome clinched a lot when Stan’s pressure became too much for him, and by the third Stan showed his superior fitness (a common theme of the night), ending the round with a barrage of punches. Ultimately the judges decided that Jerome had fought the more tactical match and he was awarded the win by split decision. Gown 0, Town 4.

By now the debating chamber was full and the audience was making a lot of noise. The atmosphere was electric, in a way that is unique to boxing shows, and people were itching for the next bout to start. Mu Huan-Lee entered the ring for the next bout to face Gledian Busi from Oxford ABC. This was certainly one of the best bouts of the night. Gledian was very aggressive and opened the fight with a wild barrage of punches. Mu was not fazed by these in the slightest, and took some on the gloves, and slipped others. Mu utterly dismantled his opponent with his powerful straight left, showing his remarkable conditioning. He knocked Gledian flat on his back with a quick left, which sent the crowd roaring. In the third round Mu landed an absurd combo of three straight lefts in a row on his opponent, which led to him receiving a standing 8-count. He ended the fight strongly, with Gledian backed up on the ropes. Unanimous decision for Mu; Gown 1, Town 4. The crowd roared again, with Mu’s personal fanbase brandishing a flag with his name and a boxing glove drawn on it.

In the ninth bout, Yannis Goutzamanis from OUABC faced Ali Gomma from Whitley ABC. Yannis was clearly the fitter fighter in this bout, but his opponent was more experienced and landed more punches in the first two rounds. In the third, Yannis was by far the busier fighter. His opponent was exhausted and boxing with his hands down; Yannis made him pay for it by landing combinations upstairs. Unfortunately, Yannis had not done enough in the first two rounds to convince the judges and Ali won by unanimous decision. Gown 1, Town 5.

The tenth bout was an absolute war. Nik Repin-Millard (OUABC) faced Remel Francis (Blackbird Leys). Nik had an incredibly aggressive style, pushing his opponent back with powerful punches. He worked the body and head very well, landing four straight uppercuts to the body at one point in the second round. By the end of the third round both fighters were utterly exhausted; it was definitely the fastest paced fight of the night. Unfortunately, the judges felt that Nik had not done quite enough, and Remel was awarded the decision. It was still an incredible effort from Nik, who was facing a more experienced opponent on his debut match. Gown 1, Town 6.

The eleventh fight was an internal one between Alex Brindle, and Adrian Kozhevnikov. This was another contender for fight of the night. Adrian dropped Alex ten seconds into the first round with a crunching overhand right, which shocked his opponent. Alex shot straight back up and used his distance well with the jab for the rest of the fight. Adrian was, however, able to use his overhand right effectively to land on Alex over the top of his left hand. The fight ended with both boys swinging at each other with intent. When the final bell rang, they embraced each other in a touching show of respect. The winner by decision was Adrian. Alex came back very well after his knockdown but could not quite turn it into a win.

The penultimate fight of the evening was between Max Jenkins (OUABC) and Zoran Vjestica (Blackbird Leys). This was a very good fight, and Max used his technical skills to win it. He was able to parry and counter his opponent’s punches, moving around the ring beautifully, in the best defensive display that I have seen at an OUABC competition. Max won by decision. Gown 2, Town 6.

The last bout of the night was between Axel Forssberg (OUABC) and Kymel Austin (Blackbird Leys). Axel was very calm and comfortable in the ring, boxing with a high guard. He landed some vicious combinations on his opponent in the second round, which left the crowd silent, as you could hear the leather crunching on his opponent’s face. In the third round Axel’s opponent was given a standing 8-count, which he beat, but he was stumbling around the ring for the rest of the round. The fight possibly should have been stopped early, but it ended with Axel landing shots at will. Axel won by unanimous decision; a great end to a spectacular evening of boxing. Gown 3, Town 6. 

Town vs Gown is a magical evening. It is a night where alumni return and mingle with current boxers, and the sport is introduced to many people who have never seen it live or at all. I remember when I saw my first show in January 2018. I was so entranced by what I saw that I knew I had to compete in the next year’s show, even though I had very little experience. I dedicated myself to training and in 2019 I did compete. That is the beauty of boxing at OUABC; if any student is willing to commit themselves to training, regardless of whether they have boxed before or even are physically fit when they first enter the gym, they will be able to completely transform themselves for the better. OUABC is a beautiful family and I welcome anyone who wants to do something special with their time at this university.

The experiences the OUABC boxers gained from their bouts will prepare them for their true test on the 7th March, the Varsity Boxing Match, which will be in the Oxford Town Hall. Even though Gown technically lost on the night, every single OUABC boxer held their own and learned a lot from their bouts. In boxing it really is true that ‘You either win or you learn’.

Ireland: Regression or Revolution?

0

Michael Dolan considers Sinn Fein’s surprising success at the Irish election last weekend.

Speaking on RTE News on Monday, two days after Irish voters headed to the polls in a general election, Mary Lou McDonald stated that “Sinn Fein won the election, I think everyone accepts that.” Yet, Just weeks ago, few could have imagined such a result. Sinn Féin secured 24.5% of the first preference vote, pushing the once dominant Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael parties into second and third place respectively. So, what could be behind the ‘Sinn Féin surge’? Has the party’s progressive brand of republicanism struck a chord with a new generation of voter, shocked by the ignorance of Irish issues in Britain laid bare by the Brexit saga? Or has Sinn Féin’s socialist message, which presents it as a real alternative to the centre-right status quo, reached out to voters desperate for change and a radically different approach to issues such as health and housing?

What is clear is that a quarter of the Irish electorate has not suddenly embraced a violent, republican ideology overnight. Whilst there is no escaping Sinn Féin’s bloody past and links with the IRA, it would be a mischaracterisation of the modern party to describe it purely on these grounds. RTÉ’s exit poll found that Sinn Féin was the overwhelming first choice of voters aged 18-25, most of whom were born after the IRA ceasefire in 1994. For these voters, its paramilitary links do not form a significant part of their image of Sinn Féin. Instead, the party represents a break from the Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael duopoly which has dominated Irish politics since the foundation of the State. This generation is also the generation which saw its prospects shattered by the economic delinquency of Fianna Fáil during the ‘Celtic Tiger’ and subsequent crash. It then saw crippling austerity under Fine Gael as Taoiseachs Enda Kenny and Leo Varadkar sought to rebuild a devastated economy. Referenda on same-sex marriage and abortion have also made it into one of the most politically engaged generations in Irish history.

Although Ireland’s economy is now thriving, the reality is that the younger generation of ‘Celtic Tiger cubs’ are not reaping any tangible benefits of this prosperity. Rents across the State, particularly in Dublin, are now amongst the highest in Europe, and the market is inaccessible even for well-paid graduates. Public services remain wildly understaffed and public servants underpaid, with pay rates not having been restored to pre-crash levels. 

Ultimately, we live in a society rather than an economy, so when we come to cast our ballot it is not the GDP that matters, but rather the figure on the bottom line of their payslip. It is no surprise that Sinn Féin has emerged as a beacon of hope for this forgotten generation, who view a vote for Fianna Fáil as a vote for Fine Gael and vice versa. This generation is once bitten twice shy when it comes to these two parties, and the absolute failure of Fine Gael to adequately address the housing crisis has served only to compound this frustration.

Nevertheless, the prospect of Sinn Féin leading the next Irish government is a troubling one. Despite the retirements of former IRA chiefs Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness from the party’s leadership in recent years, the party is not entirely detached from its past nor is it honest, let alone contrite, about it. Dessie Ellis, a Dublin-based Sinn Féin TD, served a prison sentence for possession of explosives linked to the 1982 Hyde Park and Regent’s Park bombings which killed 11 people. The Sinn Féin website, however, describes him as a ‘lifelong republican [who] was incarcerated for almost 10 years for his political beliefs.’ On Monday, footage emerged on social media showing Waterford TD David Cullinane shouting a slogan in support of the IRA shortly after his election. When questioned, Mary Lou McDonald, the woman-who-would-be-Taoiseach, simply smirked and dismissed the issue. Sinn Féin’s refusal to acknowledge much less condemn rather than ‘green-wash’ its past is concerning, but more disturbing still is the control exerted by the Army Council of the IRA over the party’s strategy.

Both An Garda Síochána, the Irish police force, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, agree that the Army Council retains oversight over Sinn Féin. So, whilst its rise is largely in spite of its odious past, the deeply unsettling consequence is that both parts of the country could soon be governed by a political party overseen by a terrorist organisation which has claimed thousands of innocent lives.

This House Believes It Was Right To Strip Shamima Begum Of Her Citizenship

0

Will McCathie and Lauren Shirreff consider the wider impacts of Shamima Begum’s loss of British citizenship.

Proposition: National Security Must Be Prioritised

Will McCathie, The Queen’s College

You have no rights, only privilegesShort of an appeal to the divine, there is little in the way of air-tight argument to prove people have intrinsic rights. Especially concerning our relationship with the state, our so-called rights are mere constructions made up by the institutions of people we put our trust into. And when necessary, these privileges are revoked by the state. If you commit a crime and are caught and convicted, it is likely that you will find yourself lacking the freedom you once believed was owed to you. Rights previously held in the highest regard can come to be significantly fought against – the US’ second amendment, for example. Even citizenships, one’s membership of the state they were born into by chance, are privileges revoked at the behest of the state when considered necessary.

There are no two ways about it – so-called Islamic State is our enemy. It is the enemy of this country, our allies, our values and our way of life. To choose to join such an entity is abandon and revoke all aspects of our world in favour of the enemy. In 2015, Shamima Begum made this exact choice, and now, nearly five years later, has lost the first stage of her appeal against the home office’s decision to revoke her citizenship. This revocation remains the right decision.

Ms Begum was fifteen at the time she decided to leave Britain to join Islamic State. Those defending her use this as evidence for lack of culpability and try to portray her as a victim. Yet, I would disagree. By fifteen, an individual is long past the point at which they are able to morally responsible for their actions. Need I remind you that both Thompson and Venables were only ten, and the courts rightly decided to convict on that case. On the issue of her apparent status as a ‘victim’, a story spun by her legal team, MRDA clearly applies – if it makes effective defence her legal team would clearly not hesitate to use it, regardless of its degree of truth. Even past the age of fifteen and into adulthood, Ms Begum did not decide to return, only attempting to do so upon the territorial collapse of IS. She not only chose to join the enemy, she chose to remain, with evidence suggesting she significantly aided the reprehensible activities of IS, such as enforcing their dress code at gunpoint, and stitching bombers into suicide vests.

This case will undoubtedly set an important precedent in the UK. To those of you who still oppose this revocation on humanitarian grounds, I would appeal to you to consider this as a deterrent, put in place to prevent human loss of life abroad. The UK’s international order is grounded on state sovereignty, not on internationally policed human rights, and these states’ ultimate priority is to their own national security. And in cases such as these, national security must be prioritized. 

Opposition: Deprivation Of Citizenship Is Diplomatic Arrogance

Lauren, Balliol College

When Shamima Begum was first recruited into ISIS in 2015, police commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe stated that she should be treated as a victim should she return to the UK. The government’s decision in 2019 to revoke Begum’s citizenship could not, therefore, be more of a u-turn. Yet, this is not an isolated case; the UK government has consistently failed young people groomed into defection to Syria, and its effort to display a ‘tough on terrorism’ stance disregards the complexity of Shamima Begum’s situation. It was not justifiable, morally or legally, to leave her effectively stateless.

For the UK government to strip an individual of citizenship with legal sanction, the individual in question must be eligible for citizenship elsewhere. Sajid Javid argued that Begum could obtain Bangeladeshi citizenship, given her parents’ nationality, but the teenager has never set foot in the country. The UK government’s decision to wash its hands of Begum, passing the legal burden of making an individual stateless onto another country, is an act of diplomatic arrogance. Deprivation of citizenship is only possible if the act is deemed to be ‘conducive of the public good’. It is unclear what kind of threat Begum would pose if she returned to the UK, particularly if she was in prison under counter-terror laws. Moreover, the UK government’s decision is only legal on the technicality that Begum must only be an eligiblecitizen of another state, not an actual one – but the UK knew that it could not expect Bangladesh to take Shamima Begum in.

What defines the move to strip Begum of her citizenship as unethical lies in the circumstances leading to her choice to leave the UK in the first place. Similarities between techniques used by ISIS recruiters with the ones used by child sex traffickers have been noted by many before, including by Nicky Morgan, who argued that Ms Begum was ‘systematically targeted and groomed’. Furthermore, Article 3 of the UN’s Palermo Protocol gives one definition for the trafficking of persons as ‘the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation’. Begum’s age at the time of her travel to Syria leaves her in this category.

Yet, the central issue is the xenophobia that Shamima Begum’s expulsion promotes. Few have held empathy with Shamima Begum, despite the innumerable horrors she has experienced. Some have attested to crimes committed by the nineteen-year-old, but she is yet to be convicted for a single crime. In an attempt to demonstrate its stance on terrorism, the UK government has acted unjustly towards Shamima Begum, regardless of the crimes she may have committed or the views she may hold. Its choice to strip Begum of her citizenship represents a massive oversight of the problems faced by young Muslim women, and the ways in which this country has failed them. She must be tried as a British citizen, and treated with humanity.