After dumping our collective stuff at the hostel that electricity forgot, we headed straight for the conference hall to get our first taste of Brighton ‘09. And who greeted us on the big screen after only 30 seconds? None other than our very own Jacob Turner, Ben Lyons and Hannah Gomersall, paraded and showcased as perfect examples of how to campaign. Despite some sentiment that this was part of a giant plan of Jacob’s for world domination following his infamous stage seat at last conference, the sight of our illustrious leaders on the big screen was greeted with huge cheers, causing everyone around us large amounts of embarrassment. But we were not to be deterred, and when Martha Mackenzie and Hannah Cusworth helped collect Oxford East’s prize for the best campaigning PLC all hell broke loose on the balcony with an epic standing ovation.

Highlights of the next day included Mandy’s witty and rousing speech, collecting enough free stationary to fill a Rymans from the conference stalls, and the beginning of the Lyons-inspired fundraising drive that saw members of OULC cajoling celebrities and bothering innocent bystanders into sponsoring messages for Look Left. There was also time for some serious OULC bonding, with lunch at Zizzi’s and a generally acknowledged domination of Brighton freshers’ week at the local club!

The third day was the one we had all been waiting for, the big speech. Reflecting on the speech from the beach, there were mixed feelings from the Oxford contingent. Most were hugely supportive of the focus on policy, and electoral reform, while the scrapping of ID cards and green jobs were also warmly welcomed. On the other hand the rhetoric on single mothers was pretty roundly condemned, and nobody seemed quite as inspired as we all knew we had to be if the country was going to be convinced.

If I was to be brutally honest, the next two days saw a gradual dissipation of the initially excited conference mood. The feeling seemed to seep through the whole party that although we had been reminded of how important a Labour victory was, that victory seemed to be slipping excruciatingly from our grasp. In many ways the Labour Students Disco became a microcosm of the whole conference – the party faithful desperate to have a good time but restricted by some shocking choices of music which seemed to be desperately trying to convince us all it was still the 90’s. Even the sight of Ed Balls cutting some outrageous shapes on the dance floor couldn’t quite galvanise us.

In many ways then it was a tale of two Brightons – the first days marked by the enthusiasm and excitement of political engagement with OULC front and centre stage, the latter shrouded in scepticism and the creeping sense of how hard the election was going to be to turn round.

In a recent poll women were twice as likely as men to say they don’t know who cares more about public services, Labour or the Tories. After record investment in schools, hospitals and early-years support women are still unsure that Labour is on their side, so the urgent questions must be: how can Labour convince women that we are still fighting for equality; and what exactly should we be prioritising in terms of furthering the cause?

Firstly, Labour needs to differentiate better between different needs. Women in Britain do not all speak with the same voice, have the same aspirations and use the same services. The difference in the well-being and life-chances of women and girls from different social backgrounds is striking. In addition to this, ‘Intersectionality’, or multiple discrimination, hits a huge number of women across the country; a shocking example of this is that 40% of ethnic minority women live in poverty, twice the proportion of white women. This isn’t to say that women’s characters are determined by their socioeconomic background, but certainly emphasises the fact that Labour needs to develop a greater understanding of the range of challenges faced by women in society.

While we should not underestimate the importance of fighting for policies which benefit women in the middle of the socioeconomic spectrum, for example by continuing and improving Sure Start, the tax credits system, and the rights of part-time and agency workers, Labour should prioritise the welfare of those most in need and battle for the representation of women at the top.

If you put together all the women who have ever sat as MPs since 1918, they would still be a minority in the House of Commons (today they make up less than 20%). Also consider the fact that 96% of directors of the UK’s top 100 companies are men, and we can see that there is simply not a powerful female presence in those spheres which make the decisions that affect us all on a day-to-day basis. Labour should continue its drive towards a more inclusive and gender-equal Westminster: not only by helping women get elected, but also by ensuring that those women, once elected, want to stay in Westminster, and are able to do their job effectively. Labour MPs should be actively working to redefine, in a gender neutral way, what it is to be a good leader, an effective speaker and powerful personality; setting the standard so that women are taken more seriously in their workplaces and communities. Reforming the practices of Westminster and Whitehall so that women are on a more equal footing with men will only enhance the quality of our democracy and our society.

Last, but by no means least, Labour needs to ensure that the Corston Report is not forgotten – the recommendations laid out need to be acted on ensure that the most vulnerable in society are protected. As it stands, the criminal justice system is set up for men and is consequently failing women. In January 2009, there were 4,199 women held in custody and around 77,000 men. Most women are in prison for theft or handling stolen goods- not for serious or violent offences- and nearly two thirds of women were sentenced to custody for less than 6 months.

Home Office research has found that 66% of women in prison have dependent children under 18 and that just 5% of these children remain in their own home once their mother has been sentenced. Women are, on average, less likely to re-offend if community based methods are employed, yet the government seem reluctant to act on the evidence put in front of it. Employing the recommendations in the report would go some way to lifting marginalized women and their families out of the trap of social exclusion; Labour should treat this as a priority and work harder to support those at the bottom.

Labour has worked consistently hard for women over the past decade and we should be proud to actively promote its record in the run-up to the general election. Yet to ensure that women still vote Labour, the party needs to have a vision for what it will do in the future to reduce gender inequality and improve the lives of women across Britain in the next decade.

Beforehand the queue twisted around the corner of Catz’s lecture theatre, and familiar (and not so familiar) faces appeared well before the scheduled starting time. Mandelson attracted a range of Oxford students: the room was full to bursting with an eager congregation; the party faithful, the generally intrigued, and even a smattering of card-carrying Tories were all in attendance.

Of all the big names in British politics, this was one man who appealed, in one way or another, to the many, not the few. A career at once encompassing power, glamour and scandal has left behind a man carefully prepared for scrutiny, and his slick handling of the media has been both mocked and envied in equal measure. This was not your average Westminster visitor.

Lord Mandelson currently heads up the Department for Business, Skills and Innovation, a position requiring a bizarre and demanding mix of roles. His speech reflected this unusual blend, and unsurprisingly also touched on the upcoming election and the Conservatives under David Cameron.

He grudgingly conceded that Cameron has a “less disagreeable public personality than his predecessors”, but dismissed any arguments that this would be a deciding factor in next year’s election. “I don’t think that likeability and personality are the only, or even dominant, factors in what makes up people’s judgement.” He also raised the point that the public feeling for the Tories is one of acceptance, rather than passion. He argued that the wave of support on which Blair sailed into office in 1997 was absent for Cameron, because “people don’t know, or don’t believe, that the Conservative Party has really changed.”

Mandelson focused on Cameron’s conference speech, teasing out the ideological dividing line on which he believes the next election will be fought. While Cameron rejected the concept of big government, Mandelson challenged his assumptions, and emphasised his support for “a government big and strong enough to do the heavy lifting”. He added that the next general election would be a significant milestone in British politics, saying, “The next general election is going to be the biggest change general election in a decade.”

OULC’s Jamie Susskind and Ben Lyons caught up with Mandelson after the speech for a few questions. On the subject of unpaid internships, Mandelson was characteristically vague about his opinion, offering the explanation “what you can afford is going to be constrained by the number of people you want to have access to those placements.”

Following the rather odd question posed to Alastair Campbell the week before on what the two of them would get up to if stranded alone together on a desert island, Lyons asked Mandelson what he thought of the prospect. He pondered the idea, and concluded that they would probably spend their time working out how to get off it.

He added that if he was forced to take a member of the Cabinet to Lyons’s hypothetical island, it would probably be “one of the Milibands”, because “they are both friends of mine, and I enjoy their company”.

He earnestly finished by commenting, “Don’t believe the cynicism of the media, believe in yourself, and your convictions”, and on that note, ‘Things can only get better’ began to play in the background, and all were transported to a happy day twelve years past, in the time where snappy sound-bites were enough to get the nation, and their votes, on side. Or perhaps we imagined that.