Skip to main content

Month: January 2016

Retroactive student loan alteration “disgraceful,” says Martin Lewis

Written by Charlie Spargo on . Posted in News.

Martin Lewis, better known as the MoneySavingExpert, has slammed the government’s decision to retroactively change the terms of student loan repayments, calling the decision to freeze the £21,000 repayment threshold “disgraceful.”

In an open letter to the Prime Minister, dated 12th of January 2016, the founder and editor of the popular blog explained that he had already hired lawyers to look into the legality of this backtracking.“Yet this is as much a moral issue as a legal one,” he says.

“A retrospective change will destroy any trust current a future generations can have in the student finance system, and perhaps… in the political system as a whole.”

The letter comes in a new effort by Lewis to challenge the government’s decision to alter the contracts of thousands of students after they had been signed. He says he hopes that this direct address to David Cameron will make him take a personal interest. There is also a video from November (see here) in which he explains his issues with the decision

Photo: HuffingtonPost

In George Osborne’s November Spending Review, the Chancellor introduced the “back door” change to the terms of agreement that were set during the change to student loans in 2012.

This meant that, where before it was agreed that this threshold would rise in line with average earnings from April 2017, it would be frozen at £21,000 for five years. Therefore, students will pay back £306 a year more in 2020-21 than in 2016-17. At the time, Lewis said, “I’m absolutely spitting teeth over this right now.”

There was even a consultation before the change, but even though only five per cent of respondents were in favour—with 84 per cent against—it was pushed through. “I am confused why, despite such cross-society opposition, your Government pushed through with the retrospective change anyway?” he says in the letter.

The former promise was a key part of information relayed to students on how high their loan repayments would be. In his open letter, Lewis highlights that a commercial lender would never be allowed to change a contract in the same way. “The regulator would never allow [it]… It is therefore surely wrong for the government to do so—retrospective changes have always been seen as bad governance.”

A Department for Business, Innovation & Skills spokesperson said: “Students do not have to pay anything back until they are earning £21,000 and will only pay back nine per cent of earnings above that amount.

“While the economic recovery is underway, graduate earnings haven’t risen as they were expected to and we consulted on the change with the sector and student organisations in the summer.”

Union and university slated for attitudes to free speech

Written by Charlie Spargo on . Posted in News.

In the second year of Spiked magazine’s Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR), Manchester’s rating has dropped to red—banning and actively censoring ideas on campus.

Last year, the University of Manchester standing alone gained a green ranking, while the Students’ Union gained an amber ranking, meaning it has “chilled” free speech through its actions. Put together they gave the institution as a whole amber.

This year, the institution gained a red ranking; the university dropped to amber, seemingly due to its Dignity at Study and Work policy, while the Union dropped to red following a range of high-profile interventions including barring Julie Bindel and Milo Yiannapoulos and the ban of Charlie Hebdo from last year’s Refreshers’ Fair.

It also cites the Union’s safe space policy—in particular that societies or invited speakers may not “promote or recruit to extremist ideologies or groups” and refrain from using “discriminatory language”—and the Student Media Code of Conduct, as Union policies that have earnt it its place as amongst the most censorious.

The 2016 results following a survey of 115 institutions come after the first ever FSURs last year, when 80 per cent of universities were deemed as clamping down on freedom of speech. This number has climbed to 90 per cent, with 14 per cent more universities ranked red than last year—55 per cent compared to 41.

Unsurprisingly after a year of headline-grabbing decisions by UK Students’ Unions, Spiked says that Unions are four times as likely to be ranked red than universities. Only 13 per cent of SUs earned a green ranking—including Hertfordshire and Southampton.

Apparently over the past three academic years, 148 “actions”, defined as “an executive decision that abridges free speech,” have been imposed—125 by Unions, and only 23 by universities. The most common was to ban specific newspapers, for example the ban by many SUs, including Manchester’s, of The Sun.

Amongst the most “ban-happy” amongst institutions, according to Spiked, were Edinburgh, Leeds, and LSE. In fact, 23 out of 24 Russell Group universities (excluding Southampton) received amber or red rankings.

Analysing the results, Spiked found that one in five institutions have Safe Space policies, while 42 per cent have “censorious equality policies.”

A University of Manchester spokesperson said: “The University of Manchester is fundamentally committed to freedom of speech exercised within the law and indeed has a statutory obligation under the Education Act to safeguard the right of free speech on campus in accordance with its Code of Practice.

“Our Dignity at Study and Work policy is unchanged from last year, while the university has facilitated a number of events in recent months where controversial views have been aired in accordance with the code. It is therefore puzzling why our ranking has changed from green to amber in the Spiked survey.”

Naa Acquah, General Secretary of the University of Manchester Students’ Union, said: “The fact that the vast majority of universities are ranked as red shows how fluid the debate on freedom of speech is.

“The two Students’ Union policies which contribute to our red ranking prevent the promotion of views that are: ‘sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, disablist or otherwise discriminatory on the basis of a protected characteristic’ and ensure that societies or invited speakers do not ‘promote or recruit to extremist ideologies or groups’ and refrain from using ‘discriminatory language’.

“It is therefore bizarre that Spiked seems to want to support people being able to be openly racially abusive, make homophobic comments and discriminate against people because of ‘free speech’.”

Preview: Mancunion Live

Written by Jennifer Sterne on . Posted in News.

During the first week back this term The Mancunion, in association with the Manchester Media Group, is hosting the first-ever Mancunion Live event on Wednesday, February the 3rd. The event will be held from 7pm in the University of Manchester Students’ Union Council Chambers.

The event will be an opportunity to meet the students who represent each political party on campus, and for the first time witness them go head to head in what will no doubt be a lively debate. It will also be a rare chance to put your questions to them, and learn about how they are working within the national political frame at a student level.

Representatives from all the student political societies will go head to head to debate the key issues facing society and young people today.  The panel members will be from Conservative Future, Manchester Labour Students, UKIP Students, Young Greens and Liberal Youth Manchester.

The event, the first of its kind for the The Mancunion, will follow the style of BBC’s Question Time, with the role of Dimbleby being taken on by our two Features Editors Joe Evans and Liam Kelly.

The panel will tackle the main political issues which have dominated student politics in recent months such as safe space, maintenance grants and junior doctors. They will then also open the discussion up to the topics shaping national political debate such as the EU referendum, responses to terrorism, the housing crisis, intervention in Syria, refugees and each political party’s response to IS.

Students will also have a chance to question the representatives of each student political society in an audience-led question and answer session. The floor will be open to students to respond to anything discussed in the panel debate or for them to raise their own issues, not addressed already by the panel.

In order to secure a place in the audience students should email [email protected] with their name, age, university, course, the political party you would vote for in the event of a general election tomorrow and finally two questions you would like to see addressed by the panel.

You have until January the 28th to apply to join the audience and successful applicants will be contacted after this date.

Fuse TV will be filming the whole event and the footage will be available to view after the night on their YouTube channel.

Full coverage and analysis of the event will also be available on our website and within the following print issue of The Mancunion so be sure to pick up a copy.

Transformer: Bowie the producer

Written by Patrick Grealey on . Posted in Music.

David Bowie was, from his ascension to the starrier heights of fame with 1972’s The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars to his seismic death only days ago, one of the musical world’s most mythical citizens. His influence on so many artists who succeeded him was huge, to the extent that to even state as much is to risk drowning in the tepid pond of cliché, and his achievements earned him the respect of innumerable artists who themselves are well worth eulogizing about.

His Archduke of rock ‘n’ roll stature lent him a suitable measure of power, too, evinced most banally by those stories in which all shades of up-and-comings are approached at haute showbiz soirées by some slightly smug Bowie aide and told that “David would like to meet you”; of course, David always did. More noteworthy are the equally numerous instances where Bowie used his considerable heft to further worthy causes, be it in the form of championing bands like The Pixies and Arcade Fire (wise bets), or haranguing MTV on their short-changing of black artists in the early 80s.

But it was perhaps Bowie’s lending of his musical talents which best exemplifies this generosity, and which had some of the most artistically significant ramifications. In 1972, Bowie, along with Spiders of Mars guitarist Mick Ronson, mucked in with a slightly nowhere Lou Reed to produce Transformer, Reed’s first and weightiest solo success after the ignominious dissolution of The Velvet Underground.

Bowie and Ronson, unlike practically everyone else at the time, had longed admired Reed and the Velvets (our Dave really knew how to pick a winning horse; how right was he, how wrong was the world…), and so it was only fair that they give back as much as they’d been given by New York’s Finest and help Lou to the success he’d always deserved.

Later Bowie did the same for another inspiration and eventual friend, Iggy Pop. Having done a perfunctory EQ job on The Stooges’ 1973 release Raw Power, Bowie later collaborated properly with Iggy on his two 1977 solo efforts The Idiot and Lust For Life. Both albums featured both artists combining their creative clout, with Iggy invariably handling the lyrics and Bowie manning the music, with some give and take each way.

The Idiot could slot into Bowie’s Berlin trilogy without much fuss, while the generally rougher Lust For Life still bares its Bowie-tinged soul on such special songs as ‘Tonight’, a ‘Let’s Dance’-anticipating jive replete with coked-up-choir backing vocals straight from the glorious wail of ‘Heroes”s final surge and Iggy’s best Thin White Duke karaoke job. The pair are widely regarded as Iggy’s best solo efforts; not to detract from him or Reed, but there’s a pattern emerging here…

Bowie’s personal and professional relationships with both Reed and Pop were indicative of the respect his talent demanded and of the loyalty and love that his character invited. Iggy, on the day of David’s death, stated that Bowie’s friendship was the light of his life. With Reed himself having not long passed on, I’d point to one of my favourite interview snippets with the old grouch as supporting evidence of Bowie’s effect on him.

Asked about Bowie’s contribution to Transformer, Reed slides into an uncharacteristically reverent tribute to Bowie’s backing vocals on ‘Satellite of Love’. Reed fiddles at the soundboard as the song’s outro pounds proudly into the studio, paring down the tracks until just Bowie’s overlaid voice parts remain. Reed keeps his comments down to droll “ain’t that great?”, and then he sits and lets it play for another 30 seconds or so, as his silence shows just how sincerely he meant it.

Giving everything away: Blackstar revisited

Written by Patrick Grealey on . Posted in Music.

In the muted wisdom of his august years, David Bowie had relaxed his propensity for the artist-as-art subtext which had always accompanied his music (or was it the other way around?) and instead adopted an antithetical reclusiveness, whereby new releases were casually and unexpectedly slid under the door like an apologetically late Christmas present. It was in this slightly bewildering manner that 2013’s The Next Day was delivered, and, well, just kind of left at that (tour the album? Ha. Pull the other one). It seemed that, having long ago been relieved by generational turnover of the responsibilities of progress and relevance, Bowie was happy to forgo all the time-honoured publicly-lived rockstar nonsense and just play in the corner, grooming his genius for nobody’s benefit or pleasure but his own. Thankfully, we still, every now and then, were deigned to merit a peek at what he’d been up to; unfortunately, his latest creation, Blackstar, has turned out to be his last.

Blackstar, in contrast with the relatively straightforward musicality of The Next Day, is as free as fire and weird as hell. While The Next Day was a thrilling reminder that Bowie could still rock hard and write great tunes, the darker Blackstar cuts straight back to the Bowie bread-and-butter of being disconcertingly original. The title track, which opens the album, is a ten-minute tumble through modal tricks and unsettlingly obscure lyrics that makes ‘The Pyramid Song’ sound like ‘Frere Jacques’, and the supposedly redeeming groove which lurches forth midway through is unable to resist the corrupting influence of the song’s dark gravity, and it ends more perverse than it began, which was pretty damn perverse indeed.

The rest of the album doesn’t dilute the peculiarity of this precedent, and the subsequent six songs strike equally disorienting tones. ”Tis a Pity She’s a Whore’ and ‘Lazarus’ leer unpleasantly, the former with a fervent psychosis and the latter with a depressive languor, and ‘Sue (Or In a Season of Crime)’ and ‘Girl Loves Me’ only deepen the madness. The album’s final two tracks almost don’t manage to restore a semblance of sanity, but the fundamental elegiac sweetness of ‘Dollar Days’ and ‘I Can’t Give Everything Away’ ensure that you’re never completely alienated by the delirium which precedes them.

Indeed, alienation seems to be the overriding effect of the album. The music is a bizarre stylistic stew, the lyrics are sad, lewd, or both, when they aren’t incomprehensible, and Bowie twists and moulds his voice like he hadn’t in years. But no matter how uncomfortable Blackstar makes you feel, ultimately the songs are too engrossing, too morosely fascinating to reject, never mind too artfully wrought. And now, in the context of Bowie’s death, which, as we now know, he knew was coming soon, all this exploratory darkness seems insuperably more brave, more astounding, more heartbreaking.

The previously mysterious lyrics of ‘Lazarus’ are now tragically clear in their morbid meaning, and ‘I Can’t Give Everything Away’, the last song of his last album, seems to lament the dreadful totality of Bowie’s final, most daring artistic project: To die. Insist though he may that he couldn’t give everything away, the world that he’s left infinitely richer behind him will beg to differ.

Bowie in Berlin – the albums from behind the Wall

Written by Elizabeth Rushton on . Posted in Music.

The last few days have seen mourners congregating to pay their respects to David Bowie in his birthplace of Brixton, adopted home of New York, and also at Hauptstraße 155, Berlin, where he lived during an intensely creative period of his career, with one Iggy Pop as his flatmate. Bowie’s former home, to which he relocated in 1976 determined to get clean from cocaine, lies in the district of Schöneberg, the centre of gay life in Berlin. With producers Brian Eno and Tony Visconti, in the setting of the beautiful Hansa Tonstudio, Bowie crafted the albums which became known as the Berlin Trilogy, and are regarded today as among his best.

Low captured Bowie’s struggle to rid himself of his addiction with some of his most emotional work, as well as the killing off of his Thin White Duke persona and glam-rock era that had gone before. “Heroes” is more optimistic, completing his transition to an avant-garde style of rock thriving in Berlin, a beating cosmopolitan heart in the vacuum of the Eastern Bloc. The trilogy ends with Lodger, a gateway record to the poppier work Bowie would go on to do on the outlandish Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps), and with Nile Rodgers on Let’s Dance.

Of course, this all took place in West Berlin—a capitalist enclave bricked off from the Communist world by the Berlin Wall. The instrumentals on Low and “Heroes” tapped into the city’s Zeitgeist with weird, experimental sounds evocative of the Cold War paranoia and the pain wrought by its division. These have had broad influence, from the composer Philip Glass and his symphonies “Low” and “Heroes”, to Joy Division, originally named Warsaw after the Low track ‘Warszawa’.

For many Berliners, it is the title track from “Heroes” which speaks the most to their city. The lyrics tell a classic story of underdog lovers separated by the Wall, longing for the day when they can transcend it all, and indeed be “heroes”. It’s also one of Bowie’s most powerful vocal performances—every howl and yelp speaks of the unbeatable will on both sides of the wall to overcome the divisions keeping them apart. This is even more the case on the version he recorded in German, which I dare you to seek out and try not to be moved.

At a 1987 concert in West Berlin, Bowie’s dedication of the song to all Berliners, including those listening on pirate radio just metres away in the East, added fuel to their fire of longing for freedom and unity within their city. It’s because of this concert that the German government’s thanks to Bowie for “helping to bring down the wall” is no overblown statement. It was an earthquake that shook the foundations of the Wall, even if there’s no evidence indicating the song was on the Politburo’s playlist in the weeks leading up to its fall in 1989.

Today, Berlin still yields many reminders and symbols of its divided past, some of which Bowie referenced in 2013’s ‘Where Are We Now?’. Schöneberg could be set to gain another, with a petition calling for the street where he lived to be renamed in his honour gaining popularity. At his old haunts, and in the shadow of the remains of the Wall at the East Side Gallery, there will always be a part of David Bowie in Berlin.

“To hunt or not to hunt?” – A rebuttal

Written by Mancunion on . Posted in Opinion.

Earlier this month, Colm Lock presented in The Mancunion his arguments for why the 2004 Hunting Act should be repealed. Whilst his arguments are coherent, and admittedly persuasive for some, it is my view that he fails to understand the motive for why people wish the law to be upheld, and why bringing hunting back would not actually reduce the pest problem that farmers have.

Before I launch my rebuttal, I will say that I agree with my adversary that what he describes as “hunt saboteurs” and their actions are not permissible. One injustice does not cancel out another. Furthermore, I would like to clarify what is up for debate here. At this present time, it is clear that the question is whether the 2004 Hunting Act should be repealed or not, and not whether more legislation should be introduced for hunters. The Prime Minister is quoted as saying he has a “firm belief that people should have the freedom to hunt.”

It is beyond doubt that realistically the next development would be repealing the act, rather than further legislation meaning the title of the article is slightly misleading. Perhaps “to hunt with dogs or not to hunt with dogs” is more apt. Finally, if it helps—which I don’t think it does—I am from the countryside, and I have, on occasion, seen a hunt in action.

In his article, he raises the argument that when it comes to laws that only affect a specific group of people, it should be the case that those people decide what they want. However, whilst this is sometimes true, it isn’t always.

Take, for example, Scotland and their decision to leave the United Kingdom, or not. It is obvious that only people living in Scotland should decide this. However, when it comes to moral choices, it is not the case that only those that it would affect most should be allowed to decide. The Hunting Act is definitely a subclass of laws derived from morals, namely that we should prevent the unnecessary cruelty of sentient beings.

When we speak of things which are morally wrong, we do so in an objective sense. That the killing of innocent people is wrong can never be qualified with an ‘unless…’. It just is wrong, no matter if it is part of a tradition of a small subsection of society. In the same way, unnecessary cruelty of sentient beings is wrong should not be qualified with ‘unless we are talking about foxes and hunting’.

Relatedly, it is interesting to see how this compares with whether halal meat should be allowed to be produced in the way it is, or whether it should be regulated or criminalised. People who want production to be halted want it to be regulated or criminalised because they think the unnecessary cruelty of sentient beings is wrong. They need not take religion into consideration as their objection is a moral one, and thus, not open to qualification.

This debate is admittedly more complicated, as those who support halal production due to their religion will argue that it is morally permissible because of this. However, this does not seem to apply to the Hunting Act, unless I missed that verse in the bible where Jesus went hunting with his hounds in the desert for 40 days.

It is now apparent that the argument that only those who are, or would be, most affected by the Hunting Act should decide whether the law is repealed or not cannot be accepted. Morality affects us all. To those who did obey Colm’s request to “sod off,” you may come back now; your views are most welcome.

Secondly, to argue that hunting should be brought back because we have a pest problem is to provide a misdiagnosis. Currently, a form of hunting is allowed and the rules are available on the government’s website. In short, firearms like shotguns, rifles, and others are allowed to be used with the right certification. Political correctness gone mad? See the United States of America for an example of a country that has limited legislation for who can and cannot buy a gun, and consider how that is working for them. Furthermore, dogs are allowed to escort a hunt but cannot actually hunt, and may only help stalk and flush out prey so long as the prey is shot and killed as soon as possible after.

Having clarified what kind of hunting is currently permissible, it remains to be seen how repealing the 2004 Hunting Act would help with the pest problem. What was criminalised then was allowing dogs to maul to death the prey that they caught. If this was to be legalised again, it is not clear how this would help reduce the pest problem more than now. The act of mauling to death an animal takes longer than simply shooting it, so the current laws clearly allow more pests to be killed in a given amount of time then the laws pre-2004.

With this said, it is also unclear why someone who opposes repealing the 2004 Hunting Act necessarily has to choose losing an entire forest over a few thousand deer. Even the most staunch vegan will have to admit that in some developing countries, animals need to be killed in order for societies to eat. In the same way, some deer do need to be killed in order for us to preserve our countryside, and even the biggest animal lover will have to understand this. However, repealing the Hunting Act would not help the efficiency of this task, and in fact would slow the completion down, not to mention the needless suffering the pests would have to endure as several dogs rip apart their flesh.

Finally, it is my intention to make a film where foxes one day rise up and hunt the farmers that previously hunted them. Yes, I want to be complicit in helping them achieve their goals, and to one day live in harmony with them.

Defend the Freedom of Information Act at universities

Written by Charlie Spargo on . Posted in Opinion.

Freedom is information. When groups with power and influence have been shown time and time again to be willing to abuse said power and influence behind closed doors, how can we continue to trust them without some promise of it being brought to the surface?

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gave us some semblance of an opportunity to hold public authorities, including Parliament, higher education institutions, and the police to account. Clearly, groups are well within their rights to withhold certain information, and they do—it is not possible to invoke FOI for government intelligence, and if collecting the data would take unreasonable effort, bodies can reject the request for information.

In fact, the ball is often in the requested body’s court to cover their own backs as it is a representative of their own who puts together the information, and so names are often redacted—as could be seen when the highest-paid HE employees were revealed by the TaxPayers’ Alliance last year, since many of the most hugely-paid were simply filed as “Unknown”.

Amid the marketisation of Higher Education, we are also now told that the increased influence of shareholders can be used as a reason to exempt an institution from requests for information. People deserve to be able to get their hands on this information about bodies that influence their lives—and do universities not affect the lives of the general public?

At the very least, there are millions of full- and part-time students whose lives are inextricably affected by the actions of universities, so can you deny that they have a right to be able to look into what their institution is doing?

This move will mean that student journalism will become exponentially more difficult, and even mainstream media will be severely hindered. Students, who are some of the most intelligent, creative and politically engaged in society will be left without an avenue to make a real impact on how their institutions work.

Consultation closes at 11:45 tonight, so it seems that our efforts to get universities to change their minds are very much in vain. On the other hand, we can’t let this direct attack on democracy and transparency pass unnoticed.

As Editor-in-chief of The Mancunion I fully stand by Hiran Adhia of The Boar and Connor Woodman of the Warwick Globalist, as well as the Student Publication Association, in condemning Warwick University’s and the Russell Group’s decision to support exempting universities from the Freedom of Information Act. There is a petition here that you can sign to back them too.

Leaked letter shows Warwick supports scrapping Freedom of Information

Written by Charlie Spargo on . Posted in News.

Student journalists at the University of Warwick have seen a leaked version of their university’s Green Paper consultation response, which appears to show the university supporting the move to exempt higher education institutions from the Freedom of Information Act, leading to serious concerns universities will increasingly act in the interests of corporate shareholders and not students.

In an article titled “LEAKED: Warwick wants to scrap Freedom of Information” published jointly in official newspaper The Boar and international relations magazine Warwick Globalist, it was revealed that on page 68 of the leaked response, the university states that, “in our view universities should not remain within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.”

Its reasoning seems to be based in the interests of stakeholders, “given the diminishing contribution of the public purse to the sustainability of UKHEI [UK Higher Education Institutions].” Apparently, the heavier corporate involvement makes the right for the public to scrutinise what universities are doing “unclear.”

The continual commitment to stakeholders in the letter “provides more evidence that Warwick’s management are increasingly willing to sacrifice the needs of students to that of other corporate ‘stakeholders’,” say the writers of the article.

The ideas set out in the Green Paper, released in November 2015, appear to be intended to make the legal requirements of public institutions similar to those of less regulated private institutions taking an ever-greater role in HE, to create, according to the Paper, a “level playing field.” This, as well as proposals including that a single minister should be able to set tuition fee levels, has caused widespread outcry across HE institutions.

The Freedom of Information Act, passed in 2000, allows access to data in the public interest stored by public institutions. It has been used to break stories such as the expenses scandal, and on a more student- and Manchester-focussed level, revelations of how much investment the University of Manchester holds in fossil fuel companies. It stands as a bastion of transparency, allowing anyone to scrutinise the activities of many powerful groups which have an influence on public life.

Jo Johnson’s Green Paper includes the statement: “The cost to providers of being within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act is estimated at around £10m per year.

“In principle, we want to see all Higher Education providers subject to the same requirements, and wherever possible we are seeking to reduce burdens and deregulate. However, we may wish to consider some exceptions to this general rule if it were in the interest of students and the wider public.”

FOI itself is not without its problems, and the Editors-in-chief of the respective publications, who penned the piece, acknowledge that, if anything, the act should be stricter not more lenient.

“The Freedom of Information Act is by no means perfect; if anything, its remit over higher education ought to be strengthened, rather than eliminated. There are numerous exemptions which are liberally applied—the Times Higher Education Supplement found that only 35% of universities provided all the information they requested.”

Depsite this, they strongly call for the university to retract this support for an exemption from FOI. “To lose it would be an attack on basic democratic rights. Students have a legitimate right to access raw data and information on their university, to understand what decisions are being made—decisions which impact their lives significantly—and how they’re being taken.

“To deny all students, including student journalists, the opportunity to scrutinise and hold the university to account in this way, is to deny them access to the truth. This is something that we strongly condemn.”

However, the deadline for response submissions is today, Friday the 15th of January.

A spokesperson from the University of Warwick said, “the university, and indeed the Russell Group as a whole, has already expressed this view… on the inclusion of universities in the Freedom of Information legislation.

“We have reiterated our view in response to the recent BIS green paper on Higher Education. We are really why our student newspaper is using the word “leaked” in its headline as that Green Paper response is already public [sic]. We have already shared it with our Students’ Union and will be posting it on our web site in full very shortly.

“The reason for simply reiterating this view in our response to the Green Paper is because the Green Paper itself makes reference to possible creation of even more private Higher Education providers who would again be exempt from the FOI legislation.”

They also cite the responses by the Russell Group and Universities UK to consultations on Freedom of Information. The former reads, “[universities] are subject to numerous regulatory requirements on information reporting, including financial health reporting, publication of data on student satisfaction and graduate employment and publication of information on courses of study. The additional responsibilities created by FOI represent an unnecessary burden.”

UUK make a similar claim: “We are concerned that the burden imposed on universities under the Act is increasingly disproportionate to the public interest in the public’s need to know.”

Review: Joy

Written by Elise Gallagher on . Posted in Film.

David O. Russell has created somewhat of a streak yielding varying results. With the proven winning cocktail of Lawrence and Cooper, Russell returns with his latest work—Joy.

Re-working an original script by Annie Mumolo, Joy tells the story of Joy Mangano (Jennifer Lawrence)—divorced, the desperate head of a eccentric household, and the inventor of the Miracle Mop. Also living under her roof is her soap opera-obsessed mother (Virginia Madsen), her father (Robert De Niro), who begrudgingly lives in the basement with Joy’s ex-husband (Édgar Ramírez).

Joy is the third successive piece of work in collaboration with Jennifer Lawrence, who was a mere 22 when she took on her Oscar-winning role in Silver Linings Playbook. The beauty with Lawrence is that she has an ability to project experience beyond her years, yet I was left unimpressed with this latest venture. Admittedly I am a Jennifer Lawrence fan, yet I found her performance in this to be jaded. Whether that simply be because she is playing an overworked single mother of two, I just feel Lawrence could have invested a lot more feeling into her role. Her performance often veered onto satirical, and I still can’t decide whether this was a deliberate move or not.

The narrative of the film uses a combination of flashbacks and fantasy sequences allowing us to see Joy grow from a hopeful and bright young girl to a grim juxtaposition once she hits maturity. One feature I did particularly like was the use of her ‘Mimi’ as the narrator. “Time moves forward, time moves backward, time stands still,” she says as the spectator is thrown between a scene with Joy and her best friend, to the first night she meets her husband, their wedding, and then the downfall.

The relationships between Joy and her best friend Jackie (Dascha Polanco) and her relationship with Mimi (Diane Ladd) are by far the most real within the film. A moment in which involves one of the pairs gathers and holds the emotional response of the audience only to let it slip between its fingers, and continue with the same monotonic rhythm the film set its pace to.

With the heightened intensity and genuine quality of Oscar success Silver Linings Playbook, you’d think Russell would aim to create the same aesthetic within this piece work—sadly, Joy fails to meet the mark.

A modern yet typical rags-to-riches story, Joy explores leaps of faith, betrayal, disappointment, and success. One element which shouldn’t go without note is cinematographer Linus Sandgren’s work. He and Russell find the perfect balance between portraying Joy’s turbulent path whilst matching it with the warmth of opportunity and optimism—the sole concept to the film.

3/5

Live: The Aristocrats

Written by Shaun Carter on . Posted in Music.

Manchester Club Academy

Tuesday, 15th December 2015

Perhaps no better space exists for a musician to demonstrate their technical abilities than in the extant social underground of instrumental progressive rock. No gnarled restrictions upon composition or song length in order to fit into somebody’s radio show; no tight grip on the creative reins—perhaps with The Aristocrats above many instrumental rock bands, this could be a mantra.

Featuring guitarist Guthrie Govan (Asia, Steve Wilson), bassist Bryan Beller (Dethklok, Steve Vai, James LaBrie, and others), and drummer Marco Minnemann (Steve Wilson, Joe Satriani, Paul Gilbert, and more), The Aristocrats took to the stage at 8pm sharp. No supporting act strode forward to excite the largely male, dark-clothed audience (indeed, Bryan Beller later self-deprecatingly asked the ladies of the audience if they were not there because their boyfriends were fans). Of course, this jest was taken in fair taste.

Perhaps the most exciting thing about the 30 minutes between doors opening and gig commencing was the incongruous presence of microphones at each player’s position. Fans waited, their breath bated.

The Aristocrats worked their intricate way through eleven songs, seven from latest album Tres Caballeros (2015), beginning the evening with ‘Stupid 7’. Despite the demands of demonstrating such instrumental prowess, their ability to create abstruse sounds seemed effortless, with Govan’s fingers spending the evening mimicking a spider, spinning a web of 10,000 beautiful sounds.

Before track two began, and before each song following, the band took to their enigmatic microphones, and exercised their eloquence in preluding every song with an anecdote, many of which were coated with humour, with punchlines hitting as tightly as the band’s instrumental cohesion. Govan addressed the audience with the grace of a lord befitting the band’s title, with Beller providing a band-leader sense of direction to the proceedings (including manufacturing an audience-voiced chorus of OHHHs on ‘Smuggler’s Corridor’); and Marco Minnemann teased the band, declaring that in one song he would maintain his drum kit with his right hand, while playing a keyboard interlude with his left—the crowd roared and clapped in awe as he kept his promise.

The track ‘Jack’s Back’ followed a kleptomaniac through quiet, darkly lit musical streets and sudden dashing raids across envisaged soundscapes of wealth, illustrating that lyrics aren’t always required in order to create a story in music. ‘Texas Crazypants’, a song inspired by a strange incident of Bryan Beller’s involving a large truck, an angry woman’s crushed car, and her myriad threatening sisters, thumped into the audience with a guttural bassline and a riff catchy enough to rattle through the listener’s mind; the only disappointment was that fans of the song might have wanted the band to be more self-indulgent, and pay homage to the ‘repeat the same awesome riff that we’ve discovered ten times’ thing, if only for the liberating, nerdgasmic headbanging sensation of recondite entertainment.

Demonstrating their knowledge of obscure history with the track ‘Kentucky Meat Shower’, and their interest in rubber animals joining them on their tour with ‘Pig’s Day Off’, there was no shortage of amusement in between songs. The preludes seemed effective. The crowd were patient and ready to be amused, and perhaps the three to four minutes of band-audience engagement offered a brief respite from the barrage of physical demands upon these three warriors of prog. With each tune, they appeared to grow stronger, sucking on the life of the audience. Marco Minnemann needed only his hands and feet to demonstrate why he has contributed to countless artists’ albums, featured on numerous Drummer Magazine covers, and came runner-up only to the mathematical wonder Mike Mangini in Dream Theater’s 2011 new drummer documentary.

Concluding the evening with ‘Get It Like That’ from their self-titled first album, the band chose to ditch the rigmarole of disappearing pre-encore, and had yet another energetic conversation with an audience desperate for the show to continue before nine final minutes of superhuman displays of fretting and drumming.

The Aristocrats finished, and faced the stage backwards in order to capture the audience in a many-person selfie, before thanking the attendees and departing.

With a quietly concerted resurgence underfoot, The Aristocrats illustrated that they are prepared to play small venues to packed crowds if the sake of the evening is creation and enjoyment—perhaps those two nouns are the real mantra of their rise.

9/10

Live: Superheroes of the Silver Screen

Written by Elise Gallagher on . Posted in Music.

The Hallé Orchestra gave the Bridgewater Hall an evening of cinematic magic with their performance, Superheroes of the Silver Screen.

With just two and a half hours of rehearsal that very morning, conductor Stephen Bell, along with the help of vocalist Dean Collinson, treated the audience to thirteen iconic film scores, making a welcome departure from the countless Christmas concerts which lace the festive season. An orchestra of 90 musicians recreated classics such as Danny Elfman’s Batman Suite, Vangelis’ Chariots of Fire, and my particular favourite, Steiner’s Tara’s Theme from Gone with the Wind.

It is important to note that this was the first ever experience I’ve had of live classical music, and I absolutely loved it. I feel the Hallé Orchestra have been branded with the unfair and highly believed stereotype of only being suitable for those who are educated in music or come from a higher class. Thankfully I was very wrong. I can think of many films which wouldn’t be anything without their scores—without the help of Hans Zimmer, Pirates of the Caribbean wouldn’t have made it to a sequel. Orchestral music is fully ingrained within pop culture in this regard and, by awakening the philistine’s unknown appreciation for it, this concert proved the perfect introduction for the uninitiated.

Joining the orchestra was vocalist Dean Collinson on his Hallé debut, who also performed during the set. A very animated performer, Collinson sang James Bond’s Thunderball and From Russia With Love, as well as ‘I Wanna Be Like You’ from Disney’s The Jungle Book.

It was the perfect concert for film lovers with all composer bases covered, whether that be John Williams, John Barry, or James Horner. Horner’s Apollo 13 added some slight surprise to the performance, with solo trumpeter Gareth Small situated at the very back of the auditorium, adding a spatial quality to the music. Conductor Bell added a few facts to the night’s entertainment, a particularly touching yet ironic note being that James Horner in fact died in a light aircraft crash earlier last year.

The orchestra then granted the audience to an encore. With The Incredibles being one of my favourite films you can imagine my sheer joy when the orchestra erupted the room with a medley of Giacchino’s score for the animated masterpiece. Adding to the excitement, apparently the composer himself was present in the audience.

Stemming from that evening’s entertainment the Hallé Orchestra were hosting an evening of ABBA complete with costumes and four soloists the next night. I only wish I’d got tickets to see that too.

8/10

Review: The Hateful Eight

Written by Jack Lunn on . Posted in Film.

Confusingly billed as Tarantino’s eighth film (either Death Proof is being cast aside like a shameful love child or two lots of box office takings is not enough for the Kill Bills to be treated as separate entities), The Hateful Eight comes straight from the Tarantino textbook and takes him into new thrilling areas.

After avoiding the leaked script, initial pre-viewing fears of Django Unchained being ripped off quickly subsided as the only similarities lay in sharing a post-American Civil War setting—the plot is one based on lies and mistrust. We are introduced to the stoic and phenomenally named bounty hunter John ‘The Hangman’ Ruth (Kurt Russell), who is transporting his captive Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a crook worthy of a lucrative payout if she reaches Red Rock to be hung.

But obstacles arise along the way, including a potentially hostile bounty hunter played by Samuel L. Jackson and the alleged sheriff of Red Rock before they all reach the checkpoint and main location of Minnie’s Haberdashery. It is here where we meet the remaining characters accumulating to the titular eight who bear hate and it becomes clear that some are not who they seem.

An atmosphere of suspicion is rife throughout. How far can the word of any of these dastardly and abhorrent individuals be trusted? Appearances can most certainly be deceiving and The Hangman must decide who are the biggest threats towards him claiming his payment. The slow burning first half sees the tension escalate and even though, uncharacteristically, there are no grandiose action scenes, the intrigue of a typically excellent Tarantino script more than makes up for this. Quentin Tarantino’s dialogue is on it’s usual masterful level, with Jackson’s Major Warren producing some purely golden lines and proving why he continues working with the director after all these years.

Having said this, a real drawback of The Hateful Eight is in its failure to fully develop its characters. Some are great, but a good number of the characters are missing any attachment to them, making their fates rather meaningless. Michael Madsen’s Joe Gage, for example, was simply making up the numbers despite an having an interesting past alluded to.

Trimming the number of central characters could have solved this as Tarantino may be guilty of allowing himself to get carried away here. Alongside this, at 187 minutes the film could have done with a bit of trimming, especially in the first act, considering that it features only a handful of locations. Thankfully this was no critical problem due to the rare and re-energising inclusion of an interval, and ultimately, can anyone really complain with being given extra Tarantino-directed screentime?

Like with all of Tarantino’s back catalogue, there are standout performers in his latest effort, with Samuel L. Jackson being his volatile, bad-ass self, Jennifer Jason Leigh excellently portraying the hillbilly Domergue by adding comedic touches—but the film’s surprise element came in the form of Walton Goggins. Despite only really having had supporting television roles and even smaller big screen ones, his take on the the sheriff provides plenty of humour and one of the most ambiguous backstories.

Introduced as a zealot of the Confederate cause, wariness and caution are needed towards this odious character, but in spite of this he manages to radiate a certain charm reminiscent of a young and southern Jack Nicholson. Goggins’ strong performance could well make him Hollywood’s go-to redneck in the years to come.

Naturally, when watching a new film of Tarantino’s you immediately compare it to his classics, though when judging The Hateful Eight on its own merits it should go down as being an early contender to sit amongst the finest films that will be released this year—if that can be said in January. Yet, ordering it amongst favourite films the director has created is a challenge—it would have to be ranked in the mid to lower region. That can only be taken as a compliment for the man himself though rather than being an unfair criticism of what can not be denied of being an enjoyable film.

4/5

Record Reappraisal: David Bowie – Low

Written by Joe Connell on . Posted in Music.

On the morning of the 11th of January, 2016, we all awoke to the news that the last son of Mars and planet Earth’s greatest pop star had died. I lay in bed distraught, listening to what seemed like an endless playlist of Bowie’s songs, each one wildly different from the last. I felt that bittersweet love for music you get every time an artist dies and you grieve through their work, those purgative sessions that sadly appear more and more frequently in our lives these days.

When I’d recovered a bit of composure, I turned to the peak of his avant-garde powers. His finest hour. Low was going on in full.

As ‘Speed of Life’ tore into my speakers like it’s from another dimension, making outer-space fare seem friendly and welcoming by comparison, I got thinking. Amid all the inhuman innovation, influence and mystique, is Low in fact Bowie’s most confessional album? An album that does what Blood on the Tracks does, only with an opposing kind of synthetic maximalism?

By this point, the album explodes into an iconic, utterly inimitable pop song that truly imparts “the gift of sound and vision” on listeners. I could write infinitely on this song because it’s forever in flux, forever changing each time you listen to it, and it never fails to surprise you. The most Bowie of Bowie songs.

Immediately after, we get to the crux of the record’s profound sense of weakness. On ‘Always Crashing in the Same Car’, one of Low’s underrated diamonds, Bowie’s quiet and understated vocals are almost forcefully carried away by heavy synths and thundering drums. Why do we keep making the same mistakes? Why can we do nothing to stop it?

A similar choked up confession echoes in the wordless harmonica howls of ‘A New Career In A New Town’, after the anachronistic clash of worlds on ‘Be My Wife’.  Though the frail human voices slowly drain away from the record, the humanity does not. The impressionistic, introspective and experimental pieces that figure on side two feel like the most cathartic thing he’s ever done. I’m getting choked up myself. Has this album always sounded so sincere?

We know that Bowie managed to produce this album escaping from the cocaine psychosis that led to vocal admiration of Adolf Hitler and support for British Fascism. Whilst that period epitomised the darkest of Bowie’s attempts to escape his humanity, the beginning of the Berlin trilogy portrays its finest hour.

Even with all the theatre—the performative death of the Thin White Duke, Visconti and Eno’s chasms of ambient production, the ultramodern sonic landscapes—it is David Jones who speaks to us.  Low is an album that paradoxically reveals the most of an artist when he is at his most oblique. It tells us that weakness and strength are not opposites: True strength can only ever come from weakness. The liminal space of Berlin in the 1970s sets the stage for recovery—a beautiful reaffirmation of Bowie’s mantra of a forever changing identity, and therefore his best album. Rest in peace.

Junior doctors strike for first time in 40 years

Written by Charlie Spargo on . Posted in News.

Up to 38,000 junior doctors have gone on strike today, joining picket lines outside hospitals up and down the country in protest of Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s proposals to change their contracts.

Thousands of routine procedures were cancelled but emergency care was still available today, as junior doctors—that is, those at a level up to but not including consultant—walked out.

The landmark industrial action was called after 98 per cent of the 38,000 junior doctors who are members of the British Medical Association voted in favour of strikes in response to proposed restrictions to the working hours in which junior doctors are paid for overtime.

Outside UK hospitals junior doctors, medical students, other medical professionals and members of the public showing solidarity gathered and protested.

NHS England reported that 10,000 of a possible 26,000 who were scheduled to work turned up today did, totalling 38 per cent, though this included the emergency staff who were planning on working today as it was.

The Manchester Royal Infirmary saw a gathering of around 40 to 50 demonstrators. As well as medics out to protest, students from the Save Our NHS campaign, Manchester Labour Students, and Black Flag Manchester were present.

Passing drivers also showed their loud support, with many honking horns and waving out of their car windows as they drove past the picket line.

Rupa, a junior ophthalmologist, was out on the picket line today. She said, “I’m striking today because I have solidarity with all of the doctors, and we’re concerned about the future of the NHS.

“The contract proposals that are being imposed upon us we’re worried about because it’s based on fallible data which we don’t trust. We’re concerned about the safety of patients and of the future of the NHS, and we hope that more people support us.

“The hospitals and the junior doctors have all put plans in place to ensure that the emergency services continue, and also the consultants are in full support of us and our strike today, and they will also be helping out. There is a continuation of all services and patients should still come into hospital if they need to.”

Junior doctors will strike again, for 48 hours, on the 26th of January and again on the 10th of February, when medics—this time including emergency staff—will walk out between 8am and 5pm.

Student nurses and midwives march against bursary changes

Written by Charlie Spargo on . Posted in News.

Student nurses & midwives have marched in London, Manchester and Newcastle in protest of proposals to replace NHS bursaries with loans.

On Saturday crowds of NHS staff, angered at plans revealed in the Chancellor’s November Spending Review to replace current bursaries with a repayable loan, gathered at Grey’s Monument in Newcastle, Market Street in Manchester, and St. Thomas’s Hospital London to march in protest.

In London, the demonstrators marched to Downing Street where a rally was held, with speakers including Chief Executive and General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing Janet Davies, who said: “Student nurses and midwives are the profession’s future, and their voices and concerns must and should be listened to.

“Over our 100-year history, the RCN has a long track record in the education of nurses and the government should listen to our knowledge and expertise as it consults on these ill thought out plans.”

In Manchester, protestors marched to Piccadilly Gardens and met with a group of junior doctors who had set up a “Meet The Doctors” event to try and raise awareness and understanding of their cause before they walk out on Tuesday.

According to the “Meet the Nurses & Doctors” Facebook page, the session was a chance for passers-by to  “Ask nurses why bursaries are so important; Ask doctors why the strikes are going ahead; Show support; [and] Share their ideas on how we can all save our NHS.”

Junior doctors will strike tomorrow after 98 per cent of the 45,000 balloted voted for industrial action. The walkout will last 24 hours and will be followed by a 48-hour strike on the 26th of January, and a nine-hour walkout on the 10th of February—during which all healthcare professionals including emergency will leave.

This comes in protest of contract changes which would increase the amount of time doctors must work without receiving overtime pay, leading to an overall cut in pay.

Manchester healthcare professionals will be at the picket line at the Manchester Royal Infirmary from 8am until midday.

To hunt or not to hunt? That is the question. But for who?

Written by Colm Lock on . Posted in Opinion.

The countryside of the British Isles is a collection of landscapes I would consider to be some of the most beautiful and awe inspiring in the world. From the Scottish Highlands to the beaches of the Solent, which I call home. They are all places of outstanding natural beauty that are not only home to immensities of wildlife but also to the Great British people. It is these people who have, for so long, been left out of the decisions that affect them and their particular and sometimes peculiar ways of living.

The culmination of this legislative exile was the Hunting Act of 2004. Ignoring centuries of tradition and practice within the countryside it was dictated to us by a government whose members came almost exclusively from metropolitan areas. They have little to no knowledge of what country life entails. If you are from a large town or city, you simply don’t understand.

I only bring up the subject—for which the debate has been put to bed these past 11 years—because of the current governments wish to see the repeal of the 2004 act and once again allow the hunting of animals with dogs.

Now, to those of you raised in the sheltered bubbles of urban life, the thought of this sort of practice may well make you feel repulsed. You will scream and shout about its “barbarity” and how it has no place in our society. Well I say to you, if you do not live in the countryside, why is it your place to decide? For years, legal drag hunting and to a lesser extent shooting has been plagued by the militant wing of a vegan cohort who would seek to usurp our long established customs and dictate to us their ideals. The threat of repeal has re-awakened a force that has been the bane of country sportsmen everywhere.

I speak of course of the hunt saboteurs or “antis” as they are known. These are people, not of the countryside, who have for decades disrupted our legal practices with total barbarity and ignorance, while at the same time continuing to believe the hunters are the savages when it is in fact the opposite.

They have beaten huntsmen with iron bars, kicked female hunters to the ground, defaced war memorials, maimed and killed dogs and caused the deaths of many horses. I remember hearing of how one group placed piano wire along an opening of a hedge they knew the hunt would pass through, resulting in the gruesome injury of the horses and likely their death.

I am sure that you are wondering where the proof of these acts is. Well, the most recent example would be that of a female hunt saboteur who has just been convicted on three charges of assault. One on a hunt supporter as young as 15. She was also a teacher and a special needs coordinator. You can’t help but question the dubious morality of these scoundrels.

Many in the anti camp and in the cities also fail to realise the pest control element involved. Foxes, while they might be cute and make a lovely background for a Christmas card, are vermin. I have lost many chickens to the beasts. Also, considering his extended absence, I fear I may also have lost my pet pigeon Oscar to them as well. Therefore in the countryside, with its limitless fox hiding places, the only way to catch such creatures is to use dogs to flush out, and if necessary, kill the fox. It would be a fruitless endeavour to try any other technique. If anyone can think up one, please contact me to let me know.

Of course, this is not the only country pursuit that comes under fire from the dread-locked metropolitan sort. Shooting of game birds also really grinds their gears. The shooting of grouse, partridge, pheasant, pigeon and so on, is still a perfectly legal practice across all of the UK. Most birds are reared for the purpose of being shot and will be released onto estates a couple months before their respective seasons begin. When it does, it is fair to say that they will have a better chance at survival than any industrially reared chicken and if they do snuff it, they will have had a much better life as well. There are such a multitude of game, that if the practice of shooting was to be abandoned, a massive cull would need to happen before hand.

Then there is the practice of culling deer in the New Forest that may also be detested by the urbanites upon first glance. But, you must think about the big picture. Deer breed like rabbits and so the population must be kept on top of because, should they be allowed to continue unchecked, they would destroy the forest I love. Deer enjoy rubbing their antlers against trees, removing the bark and killing said trees. If they were allowed to breed as they pleased, the New Forest would—I doubt—be worthy of the name for much longer. You have a choice, a whole forest or a couple thousand deer.

So, what have we learned today? Well, I would hope that after reading this article, you all feel a bit more enlightened about matters concerning our rural communities. I hope also that you will now not subscribe to the knee jerk reaction of disgust when someone mentions hunting. If you are from the countryside and wish to object then go right ahead. But, if you are from the suburbs of Birmingham or the boroughs of London, kindly sod off. The argument does not concern you.

I will however leave you with this thought. It was the work of meddling animal rights activists who brought about the apocalypse in “28 Days Later”. Do you want to be complicit in the downfall of humanity? I didn’t think so.

The New Year’s realistic resolutions

Written by Sophie Soar on . Posted in Fashion & Beauty.

The turkey was stuffed and the wine was drunk, the mince pies were filled and the pudding was lit. Nobody cares about just one more chocolate, or the turkey sandwiches, curries, and pies to finish the last morsel, mouthful and crumb…

The end of the festivities is a saddening time as we say goodbye to our relatives and holiday leave, to rediscover life responsibilities and the long lost sports bra at the back of the cupboard. The new tidings bring New Year’s Resolutions with the motivational jogging pants to facilitate such challenges.

However, at The Mancunion, we foresee all realistic outcomes. So for the resolutions that last (the compulsory minimum of) five days, we recommend some multi-purpose sportswear that can integrate further into your daily wardrobe aside from the sporadic jog around the park.

The ever-increasing range of sportswear is so loved when half price in the January sales to coincide with the end of January exams. To celebrate appropriately, look no further than Nike’s fluorescent sports bras or Fabletics’ Tribal Knot Bra for the ideal clubbing undergarments.

For those smarter occasions, complement your formal attire with Missguided’s rose bodysuit, or simply treat yourself to their Active Printed teal runner shorts to wear whilst recharging energy levels on the sofa with a much needed cuppa.

In the words of Carrie Bradshaw, “shopping is my cardio.” So if the dumbbells and weights, cross trainers, or rowing machines fail to enthuse you, shut down your Internet and return to shopping the old fashioned way.

Spectre & Speculation: Where will Radiohead go next?

Written by Jay Plent on . Posted in Music.

With the Christmas release of their rejected Bond theme ‘Spectre’, now seems as good a time as any to speculate on what Radiohead’s eagerly awaited follow-up to 2011’s The King Of Limbs will sound like. 

Radiohead are famed for taking daring and inventive sidesteps in their music, so naturally, when a band as diversified in their interests re-assembles after a nearly 5 year hiatus, there’s bound to be some shake-up. 

The possibilities following TKOL—a short, down-tempo affair scattered with electronic stutterings—seem endless. So where will Radiohead go next? What fresh musical indulgence will they deliver us?

This is my speculation; Radiohead are unlikely to continue with the folk-electronic feel of TKOL, primarily because Thom Yorke has been pursuing that with Atoms For Peace and his recent Bit-torrent release Tomorrow’s Modern Boxes, and frankly doing so with far more finesse than on TKOL. There’s little chance of them returning to any OK Computer-era guitar rock (although it’s rumoured they’re re-working an old song called ‘Lift’ from that period), as the band have moved beyond such trivial attachments, and Thom Yorke is on record as saying that he hates rock music.

An untrained eye would suggest, then, that we’ve been given little clue as to where the next album will take Radiohead; not so.

Jonny Greenwood has been spending a significant amount of time with The London Contemporary Orchestra, and composing for films such as Inherent Vice. The conceptual pieces he has been creating for these projects could influence the next Radiohead album, especially given that the band recently shared images of them in the studio with a full orchestra.

Though the band’s use of orchestral instruments is not new, we should return, not just to ‘Spectre’, but also to their second most recent song ‘The Daily Mail’. Both of these tracks, unlike TKOL, feature a far more organic collection of instruments, prominent piano, horns and strings. They sound brooding, dramatic and natural, almost filmic.

As mentioned, this is pure speculation, but I believe the band are going to go in the direction of their most recent releases: A more gentle and growth-driven sound rooted in classical instruments, but given a contemporary twist. As a band with such expertise at crafting the most heartbreaking of music, it would be a natural fit to their talents. It’s also a style the band could sit in perfectly, given that they are aging (though gracefully, I should add). This isn’t to say that the band will totally abandon sampling and electronic elements, that’d be a tragedy, but I suspect they’ll be more in the foreground than centre stage.

Of course, this is merely conjecture. Only time will tell whether Radiohead follow through with another gorgeously rich album, or whether, in his spare time, Thom Yorke has got really into acid house…

Review: Animal Farm

Written by Mancunion on . Posted in Theatre.

On Wednesday night, having ventured far beyond the all-too-familiar Fallowfield/Oxford Road corridor, I journeyed home with three peculiarly similar thoughts on my mind. As I considered how I could sum up the show I had seen at Ziferblat Café, I couldn’t stop thinking that:

a) I am a film student who has never seen The Godfather (1972);
b) I am a drama student who has never seen The Tempest;
c) I am an English student who has never read Animal Farm.

Suffice to say, having been thoroughly entertained by the Drama Society’s latest ‘Autumn Showcase’, I feel a telling urge to change the final of those three facts.

For that was what the stage version of Animal Farm seemed to do, it tantalised its audience with an enthralling and (especially, given recent political manoeuvres in our country’s foreign policy) highly appropriate story. Director Monique Touko opted to stage George Orwell’s familiar allegorical tale, where horn and hoof become hammer and sickle, in accordance with Nelson Bond’s 1961 adaptation. A story of revolution against the tyrannous humans leading to the birth and eventual decay of ‘Animalism’, the script certainly felt like a challenge, yet one that was wholeheartedly pulled off.

Touko and producer Lily Ashton deserve extensive praise for putting on this particularly chilling play with a palpable degree of restraint. It felt as though the script could have fallen into hyperbole quite easily, yet it was testament to the strength of their production that it in no way did. In what felt like an adherence to the theatrical mantra of ‘less is more’, the set was bare, the performances were understated, the lighting and sound were quietly sinister and the audience was on edge throughout. This was crucial in solidifying the plot’s dark and otherworldly feel, which might have been lost with too heavy-handed an approach.

When animalised communist workers talk about how old they are at age eleven, when they react with shock to others putting on clothes, when they describe the tyranny of humans who sleep in beds, the reaction could be comical. Yet the eerie atmosphere of the production, and indeed the entire studio space in which it was staged, ensured that the strength of Orwell’s original text was carried.

Despite this, I felt that in some ways the play itself wasn’t fully trusted. The decision to set the action amidst the 1984 – 85 miners’ strike, with references to contemporary politicians and slogans at the beginning and end of the show, for me, didn’t work. I felt that the allegory clouded the issues being discussed and, with some of the cast, the accents that were adopted got in the way of very strong performances. Touko and her production team clearly felt the need to highlight the relevance of the narrative, yet I felt as though the play would have succeeded in doing this based on its own merit. Nevertheless, with standout performances from the entire cast (to such a degree that I cannot specify anyone for individual praise) this was a strong and very enjoyable play. What more could I have expected from the same team behind A Number, which took place around the same time last year?