Student Life
The Vinted paradox: Consuming our way out of overconsumption
There are few pleasures quite like finding a jumper that sells for £70 new listed for £14, “worn twice” by someone in Leeds. It is cheaper, potentially more individual, and crucially already exists. No new jumper is manufactured on my behalf. I can congratulate myself on my thrift, environmental consciousness, and extraordinary eye for a bargain all at once. The problem is that I rarely close the app there.
Vinted’s innovation may not simply be making fashion circular, but bringing the doomscroll to shopping. Opening the app resembles opening Instagram or Pinterest: an endless stream of images invites the same absent-minded scroll, becoming uncannily attuned to my taste with every search, click, and favourite. Here, however, my For You Page comes with a price tag and a buy button. The infinite feed has entered the wardrobe.
Yet within that apparent abundance is individual scarcity, as each listing offers a single garment, with another buyer potentially hovering over it. Every bargain comes with a countdown: deliberate too long, and someone in Bristol gets your next vintage, one-of-a-kind going-out top. Missing out triggers a push notification that a favourite has sold, followed by an obliging carousel of ‘similar items’ ready to inherit your attention. Scarcity creates urgency, and recommendations ensure the cycle continues. The garment is finite; your scroll, unfortunately, is not.
Vinted’s ecological proposition to circulate existing clothes rather than manufacture new ones is compelling. But circularity describes what happens to clothes, not necessarily what happens to our appetite for them. When I asked four Oxford students whether Vinted had reduced their purchasing, one admitted the opposite: lower prices meant freedom to buy more. Another described that spending on the app felt less like a “real purchase”. Asked whether second-hand status made unnecessary purchases easier to justify, the consensus was striking: “yes, definitely”, “all the time”, and, most revealingly, “it’s fine because it’s Vinted.”
Behavioural economists have names for my amateur theorising. The ‘rebound effect’ describes how cheaper, more efficient consumption can encourage more of it; ‘moral licensing’, how virtuous behaviour makes indulgence easier to justify. Hence three unnecessary second-hand tops somehow feel more defensible than one bought new.
Research suggests this is more than hypothetical. A 2025 Journal of Cleaner Production study identified a ‘circular rebound effect’ on Vinted itself, linking lower prices to increased demand, and time spent on the platform to impulse buying and overconsumption. A separate 2025 Scientific Reports study of 1,009 American consumers found a positive correlation between purchasing second-hand and new clothing. The enthusiastic thrifter need not be the antithesis of the fast-fashion shopper, for the same appetite finds another marketplace.
This is not to collapse the distinction, for I welcome a fashion economy in which second-hand eclipses fast fashion. But Vinted is far removed from meandering through the rails of Mind or Cancer Research. It borrows social media’s algorithm of personalised feeds and frictionless transactions, applying it to consumption already furnished with an ethical halo. It makes our appetite for novelty less destructive without asking us to desire less.
Take the Vinted balance. Sell a dress for £20, spend £18 on another, and somehow I have not spent £18; I have practically conducted a swap. Richard Thaler’s paper on ‘Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice’ offers one explanation: consumers mentally code and budget money differently despite its objective fungibility. £18 remains £18, even when Vinted has helpfully quarantined it from my bank account; psychologically, however, the proceeds of selling clothes can feel remarkably like credit for buying more. Apparently pounds become Monopoly money once they acquire a Vinted balance.
There is an irony here. Co-founder Milda Mitkutė has traced Vinted’s beginnings to her “overflowing wardrobe”, revealing that: “I was surprised at the 100 pieces of clothing that I had worn only once or not at all.” Vinted converted those unused possessions into circulating value, yet its balance system complicates that solution, as sale proceeds remain poised to fund the next purchase unless manually withdrawn. Once an unwanted dress becomes £20 of in-app spending power, decluttering funds re-cluttering.
The prospect of resale also changes our commitment to ownership. A questionable purchase can always be defended with promises that “I’ll sell it again”. My interviewees admitted that potential resale made buying easier to rationalise, while photographing, listing, packaging, and posting the item was quite another matter. Vinted can therefore lengthen a garment’s material lifespan while shortening our psychological commitment to it.
None of this should obscure what Vinted gets right. The Apparel Impact Institute reported in 2026 that fashion industry emissions rose 6.3% between 2023 and 2024, driven principally by growing fibre use, particularly petroleum-based polyester. Against rising material throughput, circulating existing garments is not cosmetic environmentalism. Vinted’s own 2026 Impact Report estimates that 76% of its 2025 orders displaced the purchase of a new item. Even with the caveat of company-commissioned research, this suggests that resale can meaningfully substitute for primary consumption.
But perhaps substitution is not the end of the question. If Vinted successfully changes where we satisfy consumer demand, what happens to the demand itself?
My interviews exposed this tension. Asked how many of their last five Vinted purchases they would have made without the platform, answers ranged from one to two. Though hardly representative, this raises a distinction between the environmental benefits of individual purchases and the consumption habits the platform encourages. Unlike the charity shop, constrained by opening hours, physical stock, and the effort of getting there, Vinted is always open, endlessly replenished, and rarely more than a thumb’s movement away. Clothes become not merely things we acquire, but content we consume; shopping doesn’t always start with wanting something, sometimes boredom is enough.
Yet expecting Vinted to discourage that impulse is perhaps to misunderstand what Vinted is: a marketplace that, in 2025, generated roughly £930 million in revenue and £52 million in net profit. Its business is transactions, even if those transactions are materially preferable to fast fashion. The Vinted paradox is therefore structural rather than hypocritical: a more circular marketplace can prosper within, and perhaps intensify, a culture of perpetual wanting.
My criticism is therefore directed as much at consumers like me as it is at Vinted. When buying second-hand is demonstrably preferable to buying new, ‘better’ can quietly become ‘blameless’. I will continue using Vinted (you would have to pry my £14 cashmere jumper from my hands). But perhaps the most sustainable wardrobe is not simply one that is pre-owned; it is one where, occasionally, the scroll ends without a parcel on its way.
Student Life
Pro-Palestine march calls for University’s divestment from Israel
Pro-Palestine protesters marched from Cowley to the Weston Library on Saturday 31st October, demanding Oxford University’s divestment from Israel.
Around 120 people attended the protest, including groups such as Oxford Students for Palestine (formerly Oxford Schools for Palestine), Oxford Action for Palestine, Oxford City Green Party and Health Workers & Allies for Palestine.
The protest started with a speech about Oxford-educated administrators’ role in the creation of Israel, notably through the Balfour Declaration.
Green councillor Ahalya Bala also commented on the current situation in Palestine: “This is not a war. This is annihilation… The atrocities are still happening. It is just the pace that changes.”
“In the West Bank, forced displacement, seizures, neighbourhoods levelled to the ground, military raids, arbitrary detentions, torture, rape, executions, and land theft for Israeli expansionism and the cruel racial segregation and domination of Palestinians.”
A large banner at the centre of the gathering read: “Israel bombed 36 hospitals in Gaza and murdered more than 1700 healthcare workers. Targeting healthcare is a war crime. Arms embargo & Sanctions now!”
As protesters moved through Oxford, they chanted “blood money on your hands, show us your divestment plans”, “arms embargo right now”, and “Oxford University pick a side, justice or genocide”.
Two march attendees, Lisa and John, have been protesting for Palestine daily outside Carfax Tower. They spoke to Cherwell about the current state of the student movement for Palestine. Lisa, a current graduate student said that: “For students the consciousness is there and the willingness is there but people are afraid.” John added that Oxford’s prestige meant “there is a lot of power and opportunities to speak up concentrated here”.
Outside the Weston Library, protesters heard speeches from Nick Maynard, an Oxford alumnus and surgeon who has worked extensively in Gaza, and Haya Adams, an activist from the SOAS-liberated zone. Maynard, who went to Exeter College, said in his speech: “There are moments in history when silence becomes a form of complicity… More than 22,000 children have been killed in Gaza in the last three years.” He told the audience about individual patients he had seen in hospitals in Gaza, explaining that, on one occasion, his colleagues were stripped of critical supplies of baby formula by the Israeli military upon entering the strip.
Regarding the international treatment of Palestine, Maynard later told Cherwell: “We know it’s been failed by our governments, we know it’s been failed by our media, but it’s also being failed by our academic institutions… They have not given students a sufficient platform to talk about the genocide. Students have been fantastic. The university needs to give a much bigger platform to its students.”
Oxford Students for Palestine, one of the groups organising the protest, told Cherwell: “We wish to remind the University and others that Oxford city is extremely pro-Palestine, that we call for the end of the genocide and apartheid, and we call for every Palestinian to be liberated and have the right to return. We are twinned with Ramallah for a reason.”
The group added that “we’re calling on Oxford University and its colleges to disclose and fully divest from any Israeli investments, products, or banks like Barclays”. They also criticised the Oxford University Endowment Fund (OUEM) as “fundamentally resistant to disclosure and divestment”.
Adams, from the SOAS-liberated zone, told Cherwell: “The most basic and bare minimum thing that Oxford University can do is cut ties with genocide through their investments, through their partnerships. There really are ethical alternatives… Oxford University can also protect the right to free speech by allowing students to speak up for Palestine with no disciplinary action. They need to be held accountable for the arrests that happened during the time of the encampments.”
In response to a right of reply, Oxford University said: “Oxford is steadfast in its commitment to freedom of expression and to the right to peaceful protest within the law. At the same time, we have a legal and moral duty to uphold the rights, dignity and safety of every member of our community. When behaviour, including protest, causes serious disruption, harassment or safeguarding concerns, we will act in accordance with the law and our own established procedures.”
OUEM did not respond to our request for comment.
As the march ended, Oxford Students for Palestine reflected on how it fit with the global student movement. They told Cherwell: “The last thing we will say is that the students united will never be defeated, as we’ve seen across the world.”
Additional reporting by Stanley Arlidge and Freya Robson.
Student Life
Why the US midterms matter
How could the outcome of the US midterm elections ever affect an Oxford student? Well, the elections might affect the cost of your next Tesco or Sainsbury’s visit. This month, diesel prices surpassed £2 per litre. British grocery inflation also just ticked up to 2.5% from 2.3%. The two are not unrelated. Many attribute Britain’s inflation to the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States in the Middle East. On top of this, the Trump administration has threatened a 100% tariff on UK goods if the country does not abandon its digital services tax.
For better or worse, US government policy can affect the world, and with President Trump’s party holding slim majorities in both legislative chambers, current US policy may be challenged or forced to change. While, strictly speaking, the midterm elections only involve voting for representatives and senators, many view them as a vote of confidence in the president. Historically, the election has generally reflected a lack of confidence in the president, at least within the House of Representatives. Since 1946, regardless of party, the incumbent president’s party has gained seats in just two midterm elections: 1998 and 2002. These elections stand out because 1998 was the year President Clinton was impeached and 2002 was the election following 9/11.
Making sense of the midterms
Let’s say you agree with the notion that the outcome of the midterms may affect your grocery spend or your travel spend between or after term time; how on Earth do you make sense of the US election? Why do some politicians appear up for election and others do not? How do you know if power has shifted and a debate will occur on issues that affect an Oxford student?
In the US, Congress consists of two elected legislative bodies: the House and the Senate. Every two years, the entire House and one-third of the Senate stand for election.
A representative serves a two-year term in the House. This means the entire House stands for election on a two-year cycle, which includes the presidential election and the midterms in between. Currently, the Republican Party holds a slim majority in the House, and the Democratic Party would need a net gain of 3 seats to take control.
A senator, on the other hand, serves a six-year term, and there are 100 Senators. Further, the Senate is divided into three classes, with about 33 Senators per class. Senate elections are staggered so that one-third of the Senate stands for election every two years. Like in the House, the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, and the Democrats would need a net gain of 4 seats to take control.
What Congress can do
Now that we understand how the election works, how would a change of power in Congress affect an Oxford student’s daily life?
Congress was designed as a restraint on the presidency. Congress possesses extensive power in budgeting, defence, foreign policy, trade, and other matters which can be used to counter the president. If the opposition party, the Democrats, wins control of either or both chambers, then expect attempts to foil President Trump. This matters to students from the UK and abroad. As mentioned before, US global policy might increase our food bill, but even more, as petrol prices rise, so will prices for all travel and, in particular, air travel back home for international students.
The Iran war
So, what can Congress do? Congress has a variety of options to influence the Iran war, one of which is the War Powers Resolution. Under this law, Congress could force an end to hostilities by voting to instruct the president to begin withdrawing the US military from hostilities within 60 days. However, this would require a supermajority of Congress because the president would likely veto a War Powers Resolution on the Iran war.
Alternatively, Congress can take other steps to impede the war. This includes restricting the military’s budget, rejecting or not voting on nominees, holding hearings, forcing Department of Defense officials to testify, and more. If the Senate doesn’t confirm a nominee, the president is limited in whom he may select, and the ‘acting’ official tends to hold little political power. All of this pressure would go a distance in bringing an end to a conflict that has increased petrol in the UK by 16-30% on average and increased airline jet fuel globally by 20%.
Tariffs and the power of the purse
On tariffs, Congress could pass legislation to terminate specific tariffs or rescind the president’s authority more broadly. Much of the same congressional options that applied to the Iran war also apply to tariffs. The key difference is that if both chambers of Congress switch to the Democrats, there is a good chance legislation curtailing the President’s tariffs could override a presidential veto.
The congressional power of the purse should also not be underestimated. In 2019, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to allow appropriations legislation to pass over a dispute to fund a border wall on the US-Mexico border, leading to a government shutdown. This can hurt the American public, as the lack of funding ceases or slows essential operations and functions like airports, issuance of small business loans, court proceedings, and heavily used public venues like national parks. Traditionally, this stalemate places great pressure on the party that appears unwilling to compromise and in 2019, President Trump found himself in that position. All of this puts the President’s 10% tariff on UK goods in jeopardy and diminishes the risks of new tariff threats.
The bottom line
So, today, take note of these facts if you attend a University of Oxford watch party. The election taking place 3,000 miles away may affect you more than you imagine, as it may affect the cost of what you eat, the cost of travel around Oxford, the cost of a flight home following term time, or even more; it may affect the global economy every Oxford student wishes to work in. Don’t stay up too late, but hopefully, if you watch the election, you will appreciate its significance, and it will also provide some entertainment.
Student Life
Oxford Union overhauls voting rules after election scandals
Two forms of identification will be required to vote at the Oxford Union following consecutive instances of electoral fraud involving impersonation. Voters will now need to provide their membership card and one additional form of identification, after the Standing Committee accepted a rule change earlier this week.
Union President Gareth Lim told Cherwell that the change aims to protect the accuracy and integrity of the electoral process, especially to avoid the impact of counterfeit and illicitly obtained membership cards. The proposal to the Standing Committee described the previous system as “open to abuse” and added that the new rules are written under the principle that “the election system should be fully defensible against attempted fraud”.
Impersonation and false membership cards disrupted the two most recent Union elections.
In Trinity Term 2026, the election count was suspended after a Returning Officer identified evidence of substantial interference before boxes were opened. CCTV showed individuals attempting to cast votes using membership cards which were not their own.
Similar electoral fraud occurred during elections in Hilary, as President-Elect Catherine Xu was removed after a separate Tribunal found she had distributed membership cards belonging to other people for voting.
After both elections, membership cards were seized, and those found guilty have been suspended from the Union.
Lim proposed the new double-identification system over the summer. The Standing Committee recommended the changes, and they were affirmed by the Union’s ‘house’ on Thursday.
When asked why these measures have only come under consideration after the second instance of attempted fraud, the President told Cherwell the rules follow suspected large-scale counterfeit voting in June, whereas the Hilary election was suspected to be the scheme of one individual at the time.
Guidance on what will be accepted as secondary identification has not yet been confirmed. Cherwell understands that student identification, including Bodleian cards, will be sufficient.
In addition to the changes to voter identification, the Union is also changing the process through which candidates are selected for standing committee. Starting from the elections in Hilary term 2027, candidates for Secretary’s Committee will require three unique nominators who are not candidates themselves to stand. The change is being introduced to “help reduce the unfair and unnecessary burden placed on electoral officials by the frivolous nomination of candidates with no interest or support in winning”.
A mock election to trial the new system will be conducted by the Returning Officers during the Union’s US Midterm Election event this evening. Attendees have been directed to bring both their government ID and Union card. The new rules will take effect for the next election on 27th November.
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoLIVE: Exeter City vs Oxford United – Jersey Mike's Trophy group stage
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoOxford United lose to Exeter City on penalties in Jersey Mike’s Trophy
-
Student Life4 weeks agoRhodes scholarships cut amid financial difficulties
-
Student Life3 weeks agoFrom Oxford to Cambridge: The 204-mile punt for Alzheimer’s
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoChris Gunter details Oxford United tactical adjustments
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoOxford United youngster opens up on ‘surreal’ Aaron Ramsey influence
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoOxford United win 2-1 at Notts County in League One return
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoLIVE: Exeter City 2-1 Oxford United – Grecians lead after Bradney debut goal
