debate

To buy or not to buy; designer handbags

To buy or not to buy; designer handbags

Yes!

Yes, designer handbags are fairly pricey (a Mulberry Bayswater in Oak Natural Leather is currently priced at £895) but for what you get for that price, they are definitely worth it. You might be able to get a nice looking bag from Topshop or other high street stores for around £50 but it’ll last you a year, if that, before it gets frayed and worn and you feel the familiar yearn for something new.

A designer bag is an investment for life. You pay for a quality that just cannot be found on the high street, unless you want to pay nearly designer prices. When you spend that much money on a bag, you definitely want to make it worth it, so you will take that bag everywhere instead of the usual process of alternating between various high street buys. The top quality and classic look means that you won’t need or want another bag – it’ll last you years and you can pass it down, along with all the memories, to your children. If you buy your bag in a classic style it will go with all of your clothes, so no need for another. Truly a bag for life!

The outside of a designer bag (obviously) looks cool, but what is often forgotten about the bag as a whole is the inside. Luxuriant linings, leather trims, zip pocket after zip pocket complete with zips that don’t break after the third use. Let’s also not forget about the care instructions and help that comes with your purchase – would you get that at your local H&M?

All these points have only touched on the practical elements of buying a designer bag. That’s because it basically goes without saying that you’ll feel like an absolute fashion boss when you go out with your bag. It will automatically transform any drab or boring outfit into a cool and classy one, something that just cannot be said about a high street bag.

Kelly_Bag

No!

A Plume Hermes bag costs £5,120. That exceeds my yearly rent as Oxford, it exceeds the cost of a car with insurance and it exceeds the cost of 146 Accessorize bags of a similar size at the cost of £35 each.

You’re ready to go out for an evening, wearing a new orange dress-it’s garish but Vogue says it’s the latest stle. Then, shock horror, you turn to pick up your designer tote only to compare the light blue shade to your outfit and cringe. Such an investment is questionable if it does not match with every one of your outfits. Additionally the creamy leather bag is not appropriate to for every occasion, necessitating the purchase of further bags to compensate, rendering the walking-safety-deposit box somewhat obsolete.

Proponents of buying designer bags would point to the longevity of the items, however whilst the luxurious material it is composed of may last, the design will not. If we cast our minds back to the likes Tapestry bags of the 1970s or 1980s brightly coloured patented style, it becomes apparent a bag purchased now could not be wearable in the future.

The principle of buying bags for the designer brand name is also somewhat problematic. Obtaining certain brands is tantamount to sharing in the status of the make. Though there is another side to this. In sharing in the status of the brand you can be perceived to share a wider set of values. This becomes an issue when designers come under fire, most recently Dolce and Gabanna and Hollister, for making comments that caused offense, which could cause you to cover up that logo you so lavishly invested in.

But ultimately for me it comes down to one simple fact; who wouldn’t rather have 146 different styles than just the one design?pic2

Featured image: luxurylaunches.com,

Other images: wikipedia

OULC and OUCA societies duke out debate

OULC and OUCA societies duke out debate

Pacquiao warmed up for ‘the fight of the century,’ Oxford’s two political society heavyweights stepped into the ring to debate the election.

With just five days to go until the country decides, the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) and the Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) both argued why their party should be leading the country for the next five years.

Finn McMahon, Noni Csogor and Lewis Willcocks spoke for Labour, against Jack Matthews, Maryam Ahmed and Brenda Njiru of OUCA. The Blue Boar Room of Christ Church College was packed with a partisan crowd who never hesitated to make their displeasure or delight known to the speakers. Questions came from the audience, testing the representatives on a wide range of issues in three categories: the economy; health, education and welfare; and home affairs.

The night finished with no obvious winner, although the poise, intelligence and passion of the speakers provided enough entertainment that the audience came out as the real winners, especially given the absence of an official Cameron-Miliband debate.

Two political society heavyweights stepped into the ring.

OUCA member Wojciech Woznicki told The OxStu: “The opening speech went far… in blasting through preconceptions people may have been harbouring about OUCA and the Conservatives.” While the OUCA performance was more consistent, Woznicki said, “OULC was elevated by a thoroughly impressive performance of Finn McMahon who managed the nearly impossible feat of making Labour look reasonable on the economy.”

Finn McMahon and Jack Matthews led the charge for both camps, providing some of the night’s more memorable highlights, including a jab at David Cameron’s disinterest in competing in a head-to-head debate with Ed Miliband. Despite the lack of recording equipment, the debaters grasped for soundbites: Tory-representative Matthews opened launched the first attack by proclaiming that Labour would “balance the books of today on the backs of the young people of tomorrow.” McMahon was quick to fire back, and insist that Labour “are the fiscally responsible party in this election,” prompting hisses from the OUCA audience members.

The economics round of the debate focused on issues such as the deficit, zero hour contracts, food banks, and economic inequality, with neither party emerging as the clear winner.

Following this early exchange, Conservative Brenda Njiru and Labour representitive Noni Csogor to stepped in to fight it out over health, education and welfare. Labour emerged on top in this round, despite Njiru’s fiery opening statement, accusing the Labour speakers of hypocrisy given their private school backgrounds. For Labour, Csogor focused on the “inhuman” profits made by private NHS contractors and the “appalling cheapness with which this government treats human life.”

For the final round, OUCA president Maryam Ahmed and Labour’s Lewis Willcocks took to fisticuffs over home affairs. The Tories seemed to come out ahead, using the issue of immigration to their advantage. Ahmed called out “the hypocrisy of the Labour party on housing baffling and disturbing,” referring to the Oxford City Council’s decision to ban rough sleeping.

That is, apart from one particular spectator who decided to leave during a discussion on the environment, with a parting comment that the threat of climate change was, apparently, “rubbish.”

The sole disappointment of the night was a sense of regret was that the country was never able to experience a Miliband verses Cameron head-to-head. However, this proxy-bout, with its fierce energy and enthusiasm was everything that the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight was not.

PHOTO: Matt Cardy/Gett Images

Are award shows still relevant?

Are award shows still relevant?

YES Award shows are still relevant – Henry Holmes

Who is Beck?” The internet cried the night of the Grammys. Beyoncé’s utter gamechanger of a fifth album seemed a dead cert to win Album of the Year, especially given her competition seemed practically null in the category; Beck’s nomination for Morning Phase seemed like a mere nod to his extensive musical career. But then he won.

In a world where Macklemore has won more Grammys than Tupac, Biggie Smalls, Nas, DMX, Snoop Dogg, Busta Rhymes, Mos Def, Run-DMC, Public Enemy, Ja Rule, and Kendrick Lamar combined, it’s basically impossible to deny that the Grammys have a race problem. Approximately half of all nominations have been awarded to white men historically, with white women and black people of any gender each receiving about 20 percent each.

While Beyoncé does seem like the greater achievement as an album, it’s impossible to deny the talent that went into making Morning Phase. Songs such as ‘Blue Moon’ (also nominated for Best Rock Performance – another category where all five nominees were white men) are undeniably outstanding musical triumphs.

Beyoncé didn’t go home empty handed that night, winning three to add to her previous collection of 17. While she may have deserved that particular award, she’s not snubbed in the way that other, more subversive artists such as FKA Twigs, Against Me! and Perfume Genius, but then again, these awards have never been there for the underground artist – they’re where major record companies’ can toast each others’ achievements; spectacles to show the side of the music industry that it specifically wants to show to the public. If anything, it’s quite useful that there’s a specific actualisation of the music industry’s failings and explicit biases.

Either way, the Grammys are not where one should turn to discover music. Certain established awards such as the Mercury Prize, The NME Awards and BBC Sound of… do seem to make a positive difference. Admittedly, they do have their failings (Does anybody remember who Michael Kiwanuka is?), but they have allowed artists such as Young Fathers, Alt-J and Eagulls a boost of publicity that did help them. There are a lot of issues with these awards shows in terms of race, gender and genre, but those come from issues from the music industry and society at large, rather than being endemic of the shows themselves.

NO Award shows are no longer relevant – Naomi Southwell

“Who gives a fuck about a goddamn Grammy?,” Chuck D once rapped. When Chuck D spat out that now infamous lyric, it was in response to the Grammy’s refusal to recognise rap within the award categories. Even today, its hard to argue that the Grammy’s are in touch with the nuances of the genre when the category of “Best Rap Song” still reads as a list of rap songs that are the least threatening to white people. This year Kendrick Lamar won Best Rap Song for his track “I” which is arguably one of Kendrick’s least recognisably “rap” songs of his entire career. The song has pop, funk and soul influences running throughout but its hardly a hard hitting rap song. If Kendrick had released his latest tour de force of a song, “The Blacker The Berry” an intensely complex, angry and bitter reflective rap track, in time for this years nominations, would this track have won a Grammy? Would Kendrick have even been nominated with this song? I highly doubt it.

If the Grammy’s still fail to recognise astounding achievements within various genres, including rap and hip-hop, do the awards have any relevance for music fans? Compared to seeing your favourite artist give an outstanding live performance, or being moved or challenged by the lyrics of their latest album or single, sitting at home watching them receive an award in a pristine and calculated awards ceremony hardly ranks as one of the cumulative experiences that define your love for a musician’s life work.

Critics of the Grammy’s often lament it’s now singular role as a method of boosting record sales. But I would argue it isn’t even relevant in this arena anymore. Admittedly “Grammy award winning artist” will add a nice few seconds on to the latest advert for Sam Smith’s album, but is that really going to motivate consumers to buy an album they have previously not parted the cash for? When people can listen to an artist’s entire discography for free on websites like Spotify, its hardly the Grammy’s that are going to remedy this problem and encourage more people to buy hard physical copies, or even pay for downloads, of tracks by their favourite artists. If the Grammy’s aren’t even relevant in a role for which they are often chastised, it seems hard to argue for their relevance to the wider music industry and for music fans alike.

PHOTO/Alan Light

Is Cook still the right man for England?

Is Cook still the right man for England?


cook-2074897

‘The worst day of captaincy I have seen at international level in almost twenty-five years’ was how Australian spin legend Shane Warne described Alastair Cook’s performance on the fourth day of England’s test match against Sri Lanka last week.

The day played host to a monumental English batting collapse, with the first five wickets being lost for just 57 runs with Cook only contributing 16 of them after being bowled by Dhannika Prasad following a horribly misjudged pull shot. It seems fitting that a man experiencing such a torrid time with the bat should be dismissed following the attempt at a shot that had previously been one of his most prolific.

Predictably, when one of the greatest bowlers of all time comes out with a comment such as that, the cricketing world takes note but Warne’s critique should be put in context as both him and Piers Morgan (another one of Cook’s fiercest critics) are both close friends with former England batsman Kevin Pietersen. Pietersen was obviously recently dismissed from England’s plans by the ECB, with Cook thought to have had a decisive influence on the decision and tensions still exist between the former team-mates.

Nonetheless, it is undeniable that a lot of Warne and Morgan’s condemnations are valid with their criticisms centring largely around Cook’s form with the bat. In his last 24 innings, he has managed to secure just 601 runs at an average of 25 which completely contrasts his overall Test average for England of 45.

Cook looks a shadow of the player he used to be with bat in hand and at international standard cricket, a team simply cannot afford to be carrying members of their batting order (particularly towards the top) which is something England have unfortunately been seen doing on too many occasions with their captain. A lot of his dismissals have simply been too cheap for a man of his quality and his inability to push on for scores above 50 have been painfully apparent in recent matches.

It is probably a fair comment to assert that Cook hasn’t the been the same batsman since becoming captain, with only two centuries being secured since the start of 2013, but it is his captaincy itself that has come under most scrutiny from his critics.

During England’s catastrophic tour of Australia last winter, Cook was accused of using defensive fields and seeking to build-up pressure on opposition batsman rather than constantly seek wickets. Certainly his performance as captain was in contrast to his opposite number Michael Clarke who effectively employed the talents of bowlers like Mitchell Johnson and Nathan Lyon to wreak havoc in the English batting order.

I personally have also held serious doubts over the timing of many of Cook’s declarations which have recurrently appeared too conservative, meaning England had posted an unreachable score but without enough time to ensure the opposition’s ten wickets were taken. He was guilty of this again in the second test match with Sri Lanka when he allowed Gary Balance to secure his maiden test century instead of throwing down the gauntlet in the afternoon session and giving England’s bowlers well over four sessions to secure a win going into the final test. A laudable act, but there is little room for niceties in test cricket, as the fact that the final two test matches of the series came to down to the last few overs demonstrates.

As a man, I have no doubt that Cook is the right man for the job however. He is well-spoken, calm and logical whilst also possessing the capability of making hard decisions, as shown by his encouragement of isolating Kevin Pietersen from the international scene. He comes across extremely well in media interviews as well and is arguably very much the quintessential English cricket captain; uncontroversial, respectable and solid.

Yet this solidity is shaking and with his batting form at an all-time low, his position is rightly under question before a crucial home series with India, one of the world’s most dangerous cricket teams.

I do think Cook should be given one final chance however and should seek the refuge of his county Essex in order to try and rectify his batting, work on his technique and clear his head before what is bound to be some of the most crucial few months of his careers.

When Cook is in form, as he was in the Ashes series of 2010-11, he is truly one of the greatest English batsman to have ever graced the field. He possesses a mental strength that allows him to retain enough concentration to accumulate monumental scores such as his 294 against India at Edgbaston in 2011 and it is this quality which he needs to use to address his weaknesses, seek improvement as both captain/batsman and lead his country into a new generation of English cricket.

With individuals such as James Anderson, Ian Bell and Stuart Board; he is a leader of a team that possesses genuine world-class quality and with promising youngsters such as Moeen Ali, Gary Balance and Joe Root all showing promise in the Sri Lanka test series, I am honestly of the belief that we are on the dawn of another exciting epoch of cricket in England.

I am also equally of the opinion that Cook is the right man to oversee it and believe a resurgence of his batting form will help get the critics of his back and signal genuine improvement in his captaincy as well. Cook must however address his conservative nature and become much more willing to employ attackive tactics to ensure England start winning test matches again. There is nothing wrong with being cautious and safe but this should be balanced with the ability to know when risks should be appropriately taken.

“This house believes Scotland should be an independent country”

“This house believes Scotland should  be an independent country”

The Oxford Union was the scene of a heated and topical debate on Scottish independence last Thursday. Despite impassioned pleas from the proposition that Scotland should be an independent country, the opposition won the debate. The debate itself, however, was somewhat overshadowed by the scandal overhanging the union at the moment.

Acting President Mayank Banerjee addressed this issue before the debate kicked off, pointing out that “…we live in a country with a legal system where a person is innocent until proven guilty. Ben Sullivan has not yet been proven guilty, this may change in the future and if it does I sincerely hope that he is punished with the full force of the law.’

He then urged the Union to turn its full attention to what proved to be a heated and interesting debate. There were two major bones of contention: one, the problem of an unrepresentative government, and two, the potential economic fallout from independence. 

The proposition was quick to incite “Tory-hatred” and annoyance that they are being run by a coalition which they did not vote. Anne McGuire MP pointed out that she, as a Labour MP, did not vote for David Cameron or Alex Samond, but that that is how democracy works – a claim which won the approval of the chamber. 

The other major topic discussed in the debate was the economic costs or gains of independence. The opposition was emphatic in its argument that independence would ruin the Scottish economy, but was hampered by a lack of evidence.

 The proposition, however, stated that Scotland would be far better off as an independent country; indeed, Tasmina Ahmed-Skeikh stated that Scotland would be the fourteenth-richest country as opposed to England as the eighteenth. However, slightly tired economic arguments were supplemented by fears of radicalism, and proposition speaker Robert Harris argued that it could trigger a resurgence of Irish nationalism. 

Pat Kane turned the angle of the debate to culture, and  spoke of an independent Scotland thriving by going back to its own heritage. He suggested a return to the Gaelic language as a means of returning to nature – and even as a potential solution to overcoming the difficulties faced by global warming. 

The audience was clearly refreshed by this after an hour of economic slanging matches. The Union was in danger, in this debate, of disintegrating into a shouting match as members from the floor engaged in heated exchanges. This undermined the proposition, making them seem desperate to win points without real argument. Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Wallace of Tankerness had to contend with an objection from the floor: cries of “no evidence!” left the politician temporarily speechless.

A controversial and memorable movement in the debate was the first speaker from the floor for the proposition. 

He gleefully stated that he couldn’t wait for independence as he thought, after socialism had failed, Alex Salmond would come crawling back to the UK, making the Union stronger than ever.

 The proposition in general highlighted some intelligent and thoughtful arguments, often going further than the tired arguments so often wheeled out in the debates for Scottish independence. 

However, its arguably extreme language – claiming that the UK sees Scotland as a “colony”, for example – was reminiscent of the “Punch and Judy politics” that Ed Miliband is so keen to avoid in the House of Commons. They were unlikely to convince what seemed from the outset to be a largely pro-Union audience, and so it proved.

Proposition: Georgina Barker, Tasmina Ahmed-Skeikh, Colin Fox, Michael Gray, Pat Kane

Opposition: Robert Harris, Anne McGuire, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, John Dunsmore