Wednesday, 10 November 2010

NewsJack 2010/11 Week 3: Comrade Cable



Published in The Student; 28th September 2010

Yellow is blue, new is old, the Equalities Minister is a gaybasher, and according to Vince Cable's keynote speech at the Liberal Democrat conference this week, left is right. Everyone expected the first peacetime coalition government for eighty years to bend the rules and turn things upside somewhat, but Vince Cable's call to take up arms against the running dogs of Capitalism was still-to coin a phrase-unexpectedly out of left field.

Faithful readers will know that NewsJack loves nothing better than a politician who sticks to his guns and refuses to toe the line, and Vince Cable is a political shitstirrer par excellence. With Labour off duty while it selects a new leader it seems that the government's chief critics has been one of its own members. Vince Cable has a curious position within the coalition: originally an advisor to ministers in the old Labour governments of the 1970s, he clearly feels ill at ease joining forces with the Tories. Like a 'special' boy who goes round looking up women's skirts because he knows that he can get away with it, Cable has been taking full advantage of the fact that the coalition can't really do with him, but can't do without him either.

And what a speech it was. He touted himself as a champion of the oppressed masses against the 'spivs and gamblers of the city' and promised to bring his iron fist crashing down on banks that pay excessive bonuses. I half expected red hammer and sickle banners to fall over the top of the Lib Dem dove in the background of the stage, with The Internacionale playing as he tore off an exquisitely tailored jacket to reveal his Soviet-era boiler suit underneath.

There was, though, something transparently desperate about his speech. Carefully stage-managed (Cameron's blessing sought beforehand and choice exerpts distributed the night before to waiting journalists) it was clearly an attempt to be something it no longer is. Like a forty-something who still cakes on several inches of slap and squeezes herself into the dress that hasn't fit for decades in an attempt to convince herself her looks aren't fading, Cable's speech was a rather sad attempt to re-claim the mantle of progressivism that it forfitted this May and can never get back.

The Odd Couple (TV Review: The Special Relationship)


Published in The Student; 28th September 2010

Such is the extent to which Michael Sheen has become identified with the man he has portrayed three times that even when he played Aro, the chief vampire in Twilight: New Moon, a little bit of Blair shone through.

The Special Relationship is the third in an informal trilogy of Blair films: The Deal explored his rise to prominence and early conflicts with Brown; The Queen revolved round his role in saving the Royal Family after the death of Diana. The personal and professional relationship between Blair and Clinton is the focus of this final installment before Sheen moves on to other projects.
The first major event of the Blair-Clinton years, the Northern Ireland peace negotiations, is dealt with rather sloppily. The most important lasting achievement of either the Blair or Clinton administration is squeezed into barely five minutes.

The skill and commitment of both leaders is overlooked, and director Richard Loncraine makes it seem that a few brief words from Clinton was all that it took to get Sinn Fein to the negotiating table.

Similarly, the amount of time dedicated to the all the lurid details of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, while entertaining (there is a brilliant part when Clinton’s lawyer struggles to explain the legal implications of a semen-stained pair of trousers - Hillary’s reaction is priceless) did not really have all the much of an impact on the relationship between the two men, with Blair standing behind Clinton and refusing to distance himself from the beleaguered President.
Blair does finally get tough on Clinton when the USA is dragging its feet on the question of deploying NATO troops to Kosovo-and the argument between the two administrations over how to engage Milosevic is rightly explored in detail.

As we know from the recent souring of US-UK relations over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the release of Al Megrahi, the “Special Relationship” is not always that special, and there is often considerable but hidden conflict between the two countries. Loncraine takes us behind the scenes to show us how Blair took the lead, attempting to force Clinton into using ground troops against Milosevich rather than high-level bombing, which would safeguard US lives (and thus Clinton’s poll ratings) but endanger innocent people. Downing Street ultimately briefed against the White House in order to get Clinton to act.

As with The Queen, the women steal the show. Helen McCrory reprises her role as a wonderfully bitchy and acerbic Cherie Blair (“That ‘visionary’ you speak of is also the first President of America up on a sexual harassment charge, Tony”) while Hope Davis as Hillary Clinton is almost perfect as the steely, determined power behind her husband’s throne.

Sheen’s suitability for his role was a forgone conclusion, and Quaid makes a surprisingly convincing Clinton: incredibly intelligent but also a politician in every sense of the word.
The decision to ignore Iraq (Loncraine originally decided to include both Clinton and Bush) will be a controversial one because far more than Northern Ireland or Kosovo, it tested where Blair’s true loyalties lay. The last scene-with Blair talking to Bush on the phone as he watches Clinton leave Chequers - perhaps hints that another installment is to come, but in the meantime we must be content with what is an insightful and thoughtful exploration of these two figures - even if it doesn't quite reach the high standards set by either The Deal or The Queen.

Diane Abbott Interview


Published in The Student, 15th September 2010
Image: Cat O'Neil

For most of the past 13 years, Diane Abbott has been - to use a phrase applied to another left leaning female Labour politician - a political bag lady to the New Labour hierarchy. A figure alien to the polished metropolitan Labour elite, popping up very now and again in the House of Commons or on late night TV to lob some left-of-centre grenades at the leadership. Sixteenth century European kings had a ‘fool’ who would entertain the court by making fun of the king and his subjects; one of the only people who could openly criticise the monarch and get away with it because he was known to be a figure of fun and essentially harmless. Abbott has played a similar role these past 13 years; a sort of jester to the court of King Tony and Queen Mandy.

Her critiques of the New Labour project - well constructed though they were - never had much impact given her isolation within the party and the hegemony of ‘third way’ thinking. She seemed destined to join the ranks of Dennis Skinner and Clare Short; Old Labour lefties wailing in the wind as the centrist consensus slowly rumbles by, leaving them behind. In light of the financial collapse and the defeat of the New Labour project at the polls, however, Abbott has emerged as a popular and significant (if not entirely conventional) contender in the race for the Labour leadership. It came as a surprise to many - to herself even- that she announced her candidacy on Radio 4’s Today programme back in May. It was on one of her trips to visit Scottish party members that I met up with the MP for Hackney North & Stoke Newington.
That Abbott is not your average Labour leadership candidate is clear as soon as she enters the slightly shabby and sparsely populated meeting room in the St George’s West Church. No cameras, no entourage and with no fanfare at all, Abbott walks in inconspicuously through a side door and sits quietly in the front row, waiting for the meeting to start. In the spare few minutes before she made her speech to local party members, she talked to me about her vision for Labour’s future, her plans to revive Britain’s economy, and the struggle to balance a political career with a ‘real life’ as a mother.

Frustration at the lack of variety in the other declared candidates and the unwillingness of others to make a challenge irritated Abbott into standing for leadership: “The other candidates are all nice and would make good leaders of the Labour Party but they all look the same. The Labour party’s much more diverse than that. I looked at the field and said ‘If not now, when?’ And ‘If not me, who?’”. Commenting on the somewhat contrived way she got onto the ballot – David Milliband ‘lent’ her some of his nominating MPs, resulting her in getting the required 33 just one minute before the 12.30pm deadline, Abbott criticises the way the system seems to be stacked against there being candidates from all wings of the party standing for the leadership: “I think it’s an artificially high barrier, and in an election like this, we need to be able to choose from the widest set of candidates.

Abbott’s main pitch is as the candidate closest to the Labour party’s grassroots: “I don’t have a lot of money or as many staff as the other candidates, but what I do have is a set of political beliefs which fits more closely with mainstream Labour party opinion than any other candidates. The other candidates are all wringing their hands and regretting what the party did in the past and come out with a left wing narrative, but if you press them on their policies, they haven’t changed all that much”. She is worried that the party will face a prolonged spell of opposition unless it shows it is willing to change. She warns repeatedly that the party will suffer the same fate as the Tories after 1997 if it chooses ‘the anointed heir’ instead of electing someone willing to bring new thinking. It will show, she says, “that we have learnt nothing. The country is looking to see if we are going to leave those [New Labour] days behind, and I am the candidate best placed to do that.”

Travelling around the country canvassing for votes has opened the London MP’s eyes to the need for a region-by-region approach for both rebuilding the economy and running a political party: “When you get outside the M25, you really see that the British economy is different from place to place, you see how much of the country was left behind by the stress the New Labour government placed on the city and financial services. From my constituency in East London, you can see the towers of the city of London, but my constituents, my people, haven’t shared that prosperity.”

Abbott is less quick to jump to a criticism of the New Labour project than one would expect, and is supportive of the policies she stood for election on. “I am very proud to be a Labour MP and I supported what was in the manifesto." Where Labour went wrong, she argues, was when it strayed beyond what it promised in its party platforms: “Tuition fees were not in the manifesto, nor was sending troops into Iraq or dropping the 10p tax.”

What seems to provoke Abbott’s ire even more than the substance of New Labour is the way the party was run, with the whips cracking down on MPs deviating from the party line, allowing policies not in the manifesto to be implemented despite significant public protest: “The problem with New Labour these past 13 years was that it became a top-down organisation, so MPs became New Labour’s representatives in the constituencies rather than the other way round. We need to get back to a grass-roots form of politics, where individual MPs are seen as representatives of their communities, not an advocate of their party in their community. The leaderships of both parties need to be more prepared to value independent-minded MPs.” More freedom for local constituencies to choose their own candidates must be, Abbott argues, at the core of rebuilding Labour as genuinely grassroots party: “Nearly all four of my rivals were parachuted into their seats, they didn’t really have a local connection there. Parachuting in has really undermined democracy and undermined local parties."

It is on the subject of civil liberties, however, that Abbott really comes into her own. Getting up from her seat and striding into the crowd, she declares that it was ‘shameful, absolutely shameful’ that Labour introduced compulsory ID cards and authorised the imprisonment of the children of asylum seekers in detention centres. “We abandoned the civil liberties issue, and let it go to the Lib Dems. If I were leader, I would take the issue of human rights back, and put it at the heart of the Labour platform.” She is at her most convincing when arguing that it is a mistake to label some policies as inherently left wing and thus automatically abhorrent to the middle classes that New Labour has courted so assiduously. “Wherever I go, whoever I talk to - about re-nationalisation of the railways, for example - young, old, left wing, right wing, I get a great reaction. If you are willing to be clear and willing to be radical, you will be surprised about who will decide to support you.”

What is clear about Abbott compared to other left-wingers is she has thought through her socialism in a much more electoral-strategic way and has clear vision of how Labour can go about winning new supporters without compromising on its core beliefs. Abbott is sceptical about the need to cut the deficit quickly, and singles out defence to bear the brunt of what should be cut: “There’s a huge propaganda push that says that we need to make these cuts in the public sector but that’s based on the idea that a national budget is like a personal budget; if you owe money, you can’t spend it. But it doesn’t work that way in a national budget. In order to get out of the deficit, we’re going to have to have more jobs, more growth, more production, and all that takes investment. It is interesting that politicians abroad, like Obama, are warning that the cuts the government are making will take us back into recession. I would make some cuts, but mainly with defence-Trident [Britain’s nuclear weapons system], and I would bring our troops home from Afghanistan.”

The formula for cutting the deficit suggested by the Coalition government - 80 per cent spending cuts to 20 per cent tax increases is “completely wrong, completely unsuited to recovery”, she argues, “because, one man’s public sector cuts are another man’s job losses. It is no way to get out of recession.”

Her old Labour credentials shine through when she outlines tax increases on the banking sector as one of her key policies aimed at rebalancing the economy: “I would raise a lot more money from taxation, I would double the bank levy, bring in a financial transactions tax, and keep the 50 per cent top rate of income tax”, all of which would be used to invest in future growth. “Investment in housing and transport infrastructure, in particular, is key to growing our way out of the recession."

Abbott is indignant on the question of the media furore around her decision to send her son to private school. “At the time I gave a clear answer and continue to do so. It shows what’s wrong with the media, they don’t talk about issues, they don’t talk about what my programme is, they just want to talk about something that happened ten years ago.” Sitting with her in a nearby bar with party members after her speech, it is hard to imagine any of her rivals - “the geeks in suits” as she calls them - in the same position. She kicks off her shoes, leans back in her seat and knocks back a few glasses of wine while she reminisces about past battles with some old friends who have come to see her.

There is a naturalness about Diane Abbott that puts you at ease as soon as you start talking to her; you very quickly get a sense that this is someone who has considerable experience outside politics and is as much a ‘real person’ as a politician. Perhaps, though, that is her problem: the reason why Abbott is unlikely to win is a lack of imagination. Conditioned by decades of white men in suits running our political parties, it is difficult to imagine a middle aged black single mother as Leader of the Opposition and a potential Prime Minister. But as Abbott herself said in the last debate of the contest, “People say I don’t look like a Labour leader - no shirt, no tie - but in the 21st century, in a multicultural country that is part of an increasingly globalised world, perhaps this is what a Labour leader should look like.”

Monday, 27 September 2010

Redefining the centre

Published in The Student; 27th September 2010

The battle for the Labour leadership has ended and it is one the party has won. For the first time since John Smith was elected in 1992, the party has a leader that is broadly representative of its mainstream opinion but still in touch with the feelings of the wider electorate. However, as is often the case in politics, the more important battle-over how Miliband's leadership and policy platform is percieved and defined-has already begun. It is this which will determine whether he enters No.10 as Prime Minister or whether he becomes the next in a long line of Labour leaders enamoured by their party but not by their country.

The Tories were quick out of the gates, labelling the new leader as 'Red Ed', referring to his pledge to keep the 50% top rate of tax and the fact that it was the Union vote that put him over the top: His brother had the most first preferences amongst both MPs and amongst members.
However, while Ed certainly does bring a breath of fresh air after 16 years of New Labour, he represents a new strand of thinking that is neither as unimaginative and anodyne as New Labour was, but nor as introspective and stubborn as Old Labour. It is something that can't easily be labelled as 'left' and the new leadership should ensure that it isn't. His stance on increasing the minimum wage of £5.93 to a living wage of £7.50 has already been adopted by the Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson (who hardly could be said to be on the left of his party). Minimum wage policies have been adopted around the world by governments of all hues as sensible, pragmatic measures to save money on income supplements and poverty relief measures that are needed when people don't earn enough to support themselves from their employment.

Similarly, advocating higher taxes on banks to reduce the need for cuts to deal with a deficit caused by an irresponsible banking and financial sector is not only widely popular amongst the public but becoming part of a cross-party and international consensus: Why else would the Business Minister in a right wing, ultra pro-buinsess government spend his party conference speech "Shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour"?
His support for including Trident in a strategic defence review would aim not to dismantle Britain's independent nuclear deterrent but would seek to save billions that could be redirected to frontline services by making them air or land-based.

All of these policies are representative not of a swing left but a sensible reappraisal of what the centre ground of politics is after seveal years of significant economic and political upheaval. What both his brother and the rest of the New Labour old guard haven't realised is that the centre ground never stays the same. A nationally-run free health service was attacked as a harbinger of Communism in the 1940s, but is now the sacred cow of British politics, prized right across the spectrum. Just like the Second World War changed what was both politically possible and politically neccessary, so have the political and eoconomic crises of the past few years. There is no reason to believe that the centre ground of politics in the next 20 years will be the same has been in the previous 20.

Ed Miliband rightly said the morning after his election “I am for the centre-ground of politics, but it is about defining where the centre ground is." Labour should be at pains to emphasise that its agenda is not neccessarily about left or right, but about doing right.

It is the battle of definition-to define the centre ground and in turn define New Labour's position relative to it that Miliband has rightly taken on and will be the key to Labour's future.

NewsJack 2010/11 Week 2: The Mad Hatter's Tea Party

Published in The Student; 21st September 2010

Readers of NewsJack will know that aside from being a bottomless goldmine for the budding political satirist, American politics seems to inhabit a completely different political universe form us over here in Merry Old Ingerland. The Republicans in particular appear to be living in a different world at the moment, with their Primary voters booting out the party's experienced standard-bearers left, right and centre in favour of a veritable Wonderland-esque cast of freaks.

At the head of the table is of nutters is, inevitably, former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin.
Growing tired of having to, you know, do the job to which she was elected, the Bimbo-in-Chief stepped down from the Governorship last year after less than three years in charge and now spends her time travelling round the country dispensing blessings like some sort of dodgy televangelist. An endorsement from Palin, no matter how hammy or badly grammaticial (her speeches are packed to the gills with 'refudiations' of her political opponents), appears to virtually guarantee Primary victory, no matter how chequered your history or personal life. And nobody has a more chequered past than Palin-approved Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell. For starters, this is a woman who objects to the phrase AIDS 'victims' because "they bring it on themselves", and believes that homosexuality can be 'cured'.

Earlier in life as a teenager, she apparantly dabbled in witchcraft and unlike most American teens on their first date, her suitor didn't feel her up in the back of a Chevvy but took her for "a midnight picnic on a Satanic altar". Well, if she's got nothing else to offer for Delaware's voting public, at least she can whack out her cauldron and whip up that cure for homosexuality she's so keen on. Perhaps this will help her win votes in place of those she will inevitably lose for her stance on masturbation. She believes in your freedom to blow the shit out of anything with a sawn-off, but the freedom to touch your own genitals? No chance.

And another thing: this is a woman who believes that “American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.” Well, Chrissy love, if there's so many spare brains going around, maybe you can ask for one?

Sunday, 12 September 2010

News Jack 2010/11, Week 1 - Waltzing Widders



Five months since the last issue affords NewsJack no end of material ripe for satire. The Brokeback Mountain-esque homoerotic aura of the Cameron-Clegg adminstration is almost too easy, as is the cringe-fest that is Blair's biography (such is the ropeyness of the Cherie-Tony sex scenes, a second career as a Mills & Boon novelist beckons). The latest stage in Ann Widdecombe's post-political career, though, is too good an opportunity to pass up.

Aside from Harriet Harman presenting Blind Date or David Blunkett having a go on Takeshi's Castle, no politician is more ill-suited to a gameshow than the hard-right former Prisons Minister is to appearing on Strictly Come Dancing. Predictably, her debut on Saturday night was first rate car-crash television. Wearing a floor length gown with more material than all the other women put together, she looked like one of those novelty toilet roll covers made to look like Spanish Flamenco dancers. She is brilliantly mismatched with that gurning idiot, Anton du Beke, and the two look like a 'special' son and his mother going to a one of those tea dances that I've always imagined they have quite alot of down in Toryland.

Perhaps one of those colossal boobs his heavier than the other, or maybe because she's been leaning so far to the right for so many years, Widders tilts so curiously to one side when she's talking to the hosts that she had me checking for subsidence in the floor underneath my TV.

There was also a strange bit towards the end where, as a giant planet sucks a passing minor moon into its orbit, Widdecome grabbed hold of the tiny Paul Daniels, the two melding into one smothering, sequined embrace.

All that said, there is something quite wonderful about Ann Widdecombe. She could almost be the subject of that famous Jenny Joseph poem about growing old disgracefully; 'When I am old, I shall wear purple'. She's one of that ever-dwindling group of old school politicians who stick to their guns; set in their ways and secure in their beliefs, unwilling to kowtow to the media or the party line. Waltz on, Widders, waltz on.

Sunday, 28 March 2010

NewsJack Week 10: Senate Smackdown


Published in The Student; March 23rd 2010

Back over to America this week as former lady wrestler and former Chief Executive of the World Wrestling Federation Linda MacMahon throws her flimsy collapsible chair into the ring in the Senate race to succeed the rubbish angry Santa lookalike incumbent, Chris Dodd.
Many thought that her campaign was just another bizzare plot twist in the ever-shifting Hollyoaks-on-steroids saga that plays out in the ring each week, one part of which was-put unintentionally hilariously by Wikipedia-when "The MacMahon marital feud reached a climax at Wrestlemania 17 when Linda awoke from her comatose state and kicked Vince in the groin".

Being caught in a head lock and pile-driven face-first into the floor watched by tens of millions of people isn't the sort of thing people look for in a Senator but the denizens of the staid northern state of Connecticut seem to be welcoming her with open arms. Thirty nine per cent behind to begin with, she's now surged into a ten-point lead over former Congressman Robert Simmons, described by our very own editor Kim as resembling "an upside-down teabag".

One of the things I've noticed about the US and UK legislatures compared to other countries is how relatively peaceful they are. Slag off your opponent in Turkey and he'll fucking lamp you one. Perhaps McMahon's election to the Senate will innnagurate a new era of violent political debate to US politics. Need to break a Fillibuster? Sod rounding up 60 votes to move a cloture motion; just grab a conveniently placed 2 x 4 (covered in barbed wire, obviously) and keep pumelling him until mouth is so full of blood he can't go on talking. They could rip out all those elegant Georgian desks and replace them with 100 pasting tables cut in half and glued back together again; suplex the Majority Leader into one until he gives your latest pork-barrel project the nod. Fancy being Senate Foreign Relations Chairman? No need to hang around for three decades waiting for everyone else to die off; just goad him into a cage fight by calling his wife a skank.

An Austrian action film star is Governor of California and a male stripper Masachussets Senator; anything can happen. Inappropriately tight spandex at the ready; One, Two, Three....

A Victim of History


Published in The Student; March 23rd 2010
“Don't do it for me, don't do it for the Democratic Party, do it for the American people. They're the ones looking for action right now”, were Barack Obama's words on health care reform to fellow Democrats this week. By the time you are reading this article, it should be clear if Obama's party has heeded his instructions. Even without the benefit of a video to watch his delivery, it is easy to imagine how he made this statement, with a clear sense of dignity and purpose. The current 'compromise' bill is es “Don’t do it for me, don’t do it for the Democratic Party, d The current ‘compromise’ bill is es “Don’t do it for me, don’t do it for the Democratic Party, do it forthe American people. They’re the ones looking for action right now”,were Barack Obama’s words on health care reform to fellow Democrats this week. By the time you are reading this article, it should be clear if Obama’s party has heeded his instructions. Even without the benefit of a video to watch his delivery, it is easy to imagine how he made this statement, with a clear sense of dignity and purpose. The current ‘compromise’ bill is estimated to cost $940 billion and the debate on health care has utterly polarised the nation. With no public option and the retention of fines for the those without health insurance, many of those Americans whom the bill sets out to help will be penalised. This will fall heaviest on ethnic minorities; overall 15.3% of Americans are uninsured, compared to 19.5% of blacks and 32.1% of Hispanics.The question is why has the bill only a chance of passing in its present form, rather than the ambitious overhaul of health care initially imagined by the President, seemingly so possible just a year ago.

The majority of Obama’s promises have failed to materialise, from the closing down of Guantanamo Bay to rapidly redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghhanistan. A fact that has got lost in recent history is the relative narrowness of Obama’s victory. Moved by the history of it all, the media presented Obama’s victory as a national revolution, a hero being swept into office on a tidal wave of support. Due to the vagaries of the electoral system he did sweep the electoral college but he only just scraped 50% of the vote; as blatantly rubbish McCain and Palin were, they still got 47%. A few handful of Presidents-Bush Snr, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower (twice), Roosevelt (four times) and a good many more have bested Obama’s result. Whatever their individual reasons, very nearly half the population didn't vote for Obama, hence why he's struggling just as much Clinton did. Crucially, Obama's run for the Presidency unified the different parts of the left but did nothing to bring together a country that has been riven down the middle for decades. At the end of the day, the support that Obama used to get into office was not only fairly limited relative to quite a few of his predecessors but soft and vulnerable to fairly rapid erosion.

Obama’s difficulties highlight the perils of campaigning on nothing more than the need for ‘change’ (take heed, Dave). He did have policies-good ones, bad ones, mediocre ones-but didn’t really campaign on them; he didn’t use the campaign to win support for his policies that would have come in handy later. Right through the campaign there was a failure to get over the fact that Obama was not Bush and not white and so when it came to crunch-getting recaltricant lawmakers to vote them through, they were not faced with the broad public support for Obama's policies equal to that for Obama the man and Obama the idea.

There seems to have been a lack of forward planning on the part of the administration. They appeared to have expected the force of the movement behind Obama to make the Blue Dog conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans fall into line. Instead, the administration ended up following moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe round like a lovesick puppy and still ended up losing most of them again.

Most of all, Obama is limited by history. The US constitution was written in an atmopshere of paranoia about the consequences of too much power concentrated in one place and so the system was set up to put as many roadblocks to big policy changes as possible. The Founding Fathers were scared not only about the possibility of another King George-style despot but of the people getting their way-the constitution was an explicit response to the elected state legislatures who were too radical for their liking. This is why it took an extra hundred years after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to get legal equality for African Americans.They created, at least in constitutional terms, a very weak Presidency with very little formal power. Instead, Presidents have to exercise influence in other ways, the back-room dealing that Johnson was such a master at and used to achieve such landmarks as the Civil Rights Act and Great Society welfare reforms. Obama and his staff are too inexperienced, have risen too quickly to have developed the same skills.

Strangely for a country born of a revolution, all change in America is incremental. Everybody-the administration, Obama supporters and the media-will need to get used to the idea that he will have to be the first in a long line of Presidents aiming to build a more humane America.

The Checkout Manifesto


Published in The Student; 16th March 2010

I’ve had some strange debates in my time as a student. "Which Pokemon would you shag if you had to?" was certainly one of them, but perhaps the most heated was one I had recently on the subject of supermarket self-checkouts.

I happen to love them. Maybe I was a checkout assistant in a past life, but I still get a little frisson of excitement when my Basics noodles get the beep of affirmation. All the fun of playing with the scanner but without the 12-hour days, minimum wage and crap working conditions.
Standing in the queue waiting gives you the chance to survey an entertaining tableau of people locked in battle with the machines, trying to scan their milk for the tenth time and staring slack-jawed at a bunch of broccoli.

I’m in a tiny minority, though. The biggest complaint is that they’re not actually any quicker than the staffed ones. Perhaps true, but that’s because we let anyone use them. The other day I was stood behind a guy so glacially slow that I came close to wrenching his tomato soup out of hands and doing the whole sodding thing for him.

The solution: tests that everyone does like GCSE English should have a checkout component at the end. Once you’ve finished writing ten pages of pseudo-academic shit about Carol Anne Duffy, you can’t leave the exam hall until you’ve scanned a variety of common household items. Fail it and you’re banished to the Epsilon minor slow-lane for the rest of your life.

Not interacting with a human being is obviously a downside, easily resolved by having celebrities voice them - I’d love to hear Stephen Fry asking me to put my items in the bagging area. He’d be great, making saucy comments when you scan a packet of condoms. Celebrity voices would also solve the problem of people being too slow. You would have, say, five seconds to scan each item: do it in less and the machine congratulates you, bathing you in the dulcet tones of Judi Dench.

Take longer and you get Malcolm Tucker shouting a choice line from his vast litany of insults ("You’re about as useless as a marzipan dildo", "Hurry the fuck up, or fuck the fuck off, YOU MASSIVE GAY SHITE"). That should get people to speed up and force the too old, slow or stupid to get back to the normal checkouts where they belong.

Right Foot Forward

Published in The Student; 9th March 2010

Last week former Labour leader Michael Foot died at the age of 96. A giant of both pre and post-war politics, Foot was one of the great minds of his party but ever since his unsuccessful tenure as Labour leader he has been portrayed both by the media and his successors as a relic of a previous political age, out of touch with public opnion. Foot was elected in Labour's move leftwards in the early 1980s, given the impossible job of uniting a party divided between right and left. He went into the 1983 election with a radical leftist manifesto, advocating the scrapping of nuclear weapons, nationalization of key industries and an expansion of the welfare state. Labour suffered its worst defeat, slumping to 27% of the vote, only slightly ahead of the SDP-Liberal Alliance, the forerunners of the Liberal Democrats. Mrs Thatcher's huge win (144 seat majority) has been used by Labour modernizers ever since as proof that British people will never accept socialist policies, thus justfying the transformation of the party into New Labour, abandoning most of its principles on the way.

However, the Labour modernizers' reading of the 1983 election is highly selective and a fairly blatant distortion of what actually happened. The first thing to highlight is the importance of the Falklands war. Before the war, Thatcher was the most unpopular Prime Minister since records began and the Tories were third in the polls, behind both Labour and the Alliance. Galtieri's invasion and Thatcher's crushing victory pulled her out of the doldrums and she rode the ensuing wave of jingoism to victory but had it not been for the war, Foot almost certainly would have been Prime Minister and Thatcher consigned to the footnotes of history. If you look into the polling data that exists on the public's policy preferences you will find that the electorate consistently rejected Thatcherite policies all the way through her time in power and backed Labour positions in most policy areas. If the public were really hostile to Labour's socialist policies, the polls would have shown a steep drop in Labour support after the publication of the so-called 'Longest suicide note in history' manifesto. In fact, no such drop happened and Foot was right in the race all the way up until the last few days, when Alliance support surged. The reason why Labour's defeat was so huge was because there was a split in the left-leaning vote between Labour and the Alliance, with the vagaries of the electoral system turning into a massive but unwarraneted victory for Thatcher. Thatcher actually lost votes compared to the previous election, yet this has not stopped Labour modernizers since then arguing that the British electorate is essentially centre right and that the Labour party can't ever win on a left-leaning platform.

Looked at today, Foot's 1983 manifesto is largely both sensible and in-tune with public opinion; the party proposed tighter banking regulations and the nationalization of irresponsible banks, stricter controls on lending, energy conservation and the the scrapping of the Trident nuclear missile programme. Labour ministers now jump on some of these policies as 'sensible solutions' despite having portayed them as the unworkable, backwards ideas of the 'loony left' for more than three decades.

New Labourites queueing up to laud Foot should take a step moment to consider the irony of what they're doing; they pissed all over his record for years in order to advance their own distorted view of Labour values and are having to praise him just at the very time that he is being proved to have been right all the time.

Brown Sugar Daddy


Published in The Student; 9th March 2010.
As Catriona Curry

Blair had his ‘babes’, Cameron has his ‘cuties’ and now even Brown is getting in on the act with his new generation of ‘Brown sugars.’ Yes, high profile women in politics may seem like an ideal way for political parties to gain more media attention, and if this is what their aiming for, then it’s clearly working. It emerged last week that GMTV’s Gloria De Piero is being backed to take Geoff Hoon's seat in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire. Die Piero once beat Kate Moss in a “World’s Sexiest Woman” poll. However, this is not the first time that Gordon has added spice to his campaign, the original ‘Brown sugars’ helped him to vistory in the race for Edinburgh University Rector in 1974. The girls donned miniskirts and t-shirts bearing the slogan “Gordon for me!” One of the girls who featured as one of the '74 ‘sugars’ recently admitted the idea was to show ‘a bit of leg to give it a boost.’
However, the new generation of Brown’s ladies have dropped the miniskirts and replaced them with more conservative suits, but in some constituencies all-female lists have riled Labour activists, who claim that Labour senior party officials are attempting to ‘parachute’ in favoured women. Some argue that, back in the sixties and seventies, women such as Barbara Castle and Margaret Thatcher had still managed to come up through a system which had blocked them at every turn and today's prospective female politicians should be able to do the same. The 1997 General Election saw a large influx of women into the House of Commons after Labour's use of all women candidate lists, but very few of them have proven themselves their equal of their predecessors. The middle and lower reaches of the ministerial ranks are packed to the gills with mediocre women ministers who won their seats via all women lists, none of whom show the tenacity of Thatcher, the brevity of Shirley Williams, Castle's passion or the campaigning spirit of legendary 1930s MP Ellen Wilkinson. Few of those that have made it to the Cabinet have been impressive. Jacqui Smith was elected on an all woman short-list and she proved to be a bumbling, ineffective Home Secretary and was uncovered as one of the most prominent 'flippers' during the expenses scandal. The Liberal Democrats have the largest proportion of female councillors of any political party in the country, but they have a policy of not discriminating on the grounds of gender or race. This might give us an indiction that the political culture of the two main parties is to blame and that discriminating in favour of women is just a sticking plaster and doesn't deal with the real problem.

David Cameron has pushed hard to get women to be selected in winnable seats, but while the Tory benches may have more women on them come June, is this inherently a good thing? One of his most high profile women stood as a Labour candidate as recently as 2006 and the Tories knew this when they selected her-another indication that Cameron's push for more women is little more than a cosmetic exercise.Is it really fair that women are giving a helping hand in British politics, and more importantly, do women really need a helping hand? Emily Davison presumably didn’t throw herself under King George V’s horse just so that women could be given constituency seats on a silver platter. Why can’t female politicians gain seats in an equal and fair manner, with men and women running together? Is it fair to ban men from standing for their home seat for their party in favour of women parachuted in from elsewhere? Like men, women should stand purely on merits alone, and if there is a problem regarding attitudes towards women which leads them to not being selected, then it is clearly these attitudes that require changing.

A few weeks ago the press trumpeted the election victory of Laura Chinchilla who won a landslide Presidential election in Costa Rica, a country with a very traditional paternilist society. A victory for women, it would appear. However, she is vehemently against abortion, the pill, and all other reproductive rights and is likely to do little to advance the cause of her gender. The victory of a woman is not the same as a victory for women. Reducing the issue of women's participation in politics to their gender is insulting and does nothing to tackle the real barriers to their participation in national life.

On Expenses


Published in The Student; March 2nd, 2010

Like that glut of films about 9/11, I was a bit suspicious about On Expenses being broadcast so close to the events in portrays. The expenses scandal was a national orgy of exaggerated disgust about something we all, deep down, knew was happening anyway, if not in the lurid detail that eventually emerged. We all took part in it, and there was a risk of On Expenses being a worthless continuation of what we’ve been exposed to ad nauseum over the past year simply indulging our jumped-up sense of outrage. Praise is due, then, for writer Tony Saint’s extremely well-researched and revealing insight into the origins of the biggest political scandal of the this century.

Like many others, I assumed that the whole thing had been dug up by The Daily Telegraph, but On Expenses revealed that the whole thing was the result of the campaign of one lone frustrated woman, going all the way back to 2005. Given that we already know every single gory detail of what went on, it is extremely wise of Saint to focus more on the unknown back story to the scandal. Anna Maxwell-Martin plays Heather Brooke, an American former journalist having a mid-life career lull frustrated with a country she sees as overly bureaucratic, elitist and secretive.

With the passage of the Freedom of Information Act , Brooke launches a one woman legal campaign to get the Commons’ authorities to come clean on expenses. Enter the wonderfully puffed-up Speaker Michael Martin, portrayed brilliantly by Brian Cox. Not only does Cox look and sound exactly like Martin, but he captures perfectly someone who started out as an outsider, a former radical trade unionist born into one of the poorest areas of the country, someone who should have been outside the tent pissing in, but got sucked into the establishment and works flat-out to uphold it against the interests of those he is meant to represent. Martin is the focus of the programme’s surprisingly small number of gags; swigging Irn Bru out of a plastic bottle in the opulence of the Speaker’s residence, and wandering around attempting to play the bagpipes in his full Speaker get-up.
The promotion of On Expenses as a ‘comedy’ was overselling slightly: the humour is fairly subtle (MPs walking around with John Lewis carrier bags) but as a result tends to get lost too far into the background, especially in the middle when the focus shifts to the plethora of court battles and committee hearings, when the whole things gets a bit dry.
The most surprising thing is how badly Brooke comes off. Again, it would be easy for her to be written as hero, a long crusader against an evil establishment, a sort of one woman repository of the nation’s spleen. In contrast, she comes across as a rather sad and pathetic figure, unhealthily obsessed with herself and not doing it all for the sake of transparency and openness but as an attempt to jump-start her career (hence her anger at The Daily Telegraph for hijacking ‘her’ campaign).
At some points she is so over the top that you start feeling sorry for Martin and the other MPs. Equally, while they are not let of the hook ("This freedom of information stuff applies to us as well then?" captures their aloofness and arrogance perfectly), it pokes fun without becoming the 50-minute mass lynching it had the potential to be under a less careful director.
This was a long overdue levelling of the playing field and a welcome injection of sobriety into the expenses scandal.

On Expenses doles out punishment to both sides, reminding us that we are partly at fault for not previously paying enough attention to what goes on in Westminster and pointing out that most of us would probably have done the same thing and that our politicians did nothing that hasn’t been going on everywhere for time immemorial.

Poll-er Coaster


Published in The Student; March 2nd, 2010

The traditional politician's line about opinion polls is that the only poll that matters is the one held on election day. However, a recent seismic shift in recent polling data has set alarm bells ringing in Tory HQ and is putting an unexpected spring in Gordon Brown's step.Apart from the occasional blip, the polls have, until recently, told much the same story: The Conservatives would will win a forthcoming general election by a landslide, with as much as a fifteen per cent or more gap between them and Labour. The gap shrunk in the new year to around 10% (the minimum the Opposition need to win an outright majority) and has recently narrowed to 6%-8%, deep into hung parliament territory.

A poll released on Sunday by YouGov shows an even greater tightening;. with the Conservatives leading 37:35, with the Liberal Democrats on 17. But it is too early yet to know if this represents a new trend, or is just a deviation from the well-established 6%-8% gap. If that result was repeated on May 6th (the most likely date for an election), Labour would be the largest party (albeit without a majority) and Brown would stay as Prime Minister, a result deemed unthinkable just a few months ago. In addition to asking about voting intention, polling organizations also ask a number of questions about the respondent's opinions on policy matters and on what they think about the parties and their leaders.

The answers to these give us a clue as to what might be behind such a noticable and sustained change in the polls. Economic confidence has risen: The voters now know that the economy is out of recession, a recognition that will be boosted by the uprating of the quarterly growth rate from a nominal 0.1% to a more solid 0.3%. More importantly, given that economic confidence is a very unstable figure, is the inexorable recovery of Labour as the party most trusted party on the economy. This went into freefall in 2008, but now Brown-Darling have recovered and now lead Cameron-Osborne. There is a recognition that, whoever was to blame for the recession, the government probably did do the right thing.

On the opposite page, Josh Jones takes quite a dim view of the ability of voters to understand the issues of the deficit, national debt and economic growth, but on the contrary, the polls would suggest that the voters understand all this rather better than the media give them credit for: Voters have not so much been scared off by the admirably brave Tory pledge to cut the budget 'savagely', but have made a shrewd calculation that this could stall the recovery that the country has spent so much money trying to attain. The Tories know this and are backpedalling spectacularly, with the budget cut pledge now down to a paltry £1bn. There is also a long-noticed tendency for the governing party to rise in the opinion of the voters in the last months before an election (although not usually as much as this) because they are to a much greater extent thinking about how they will actually vote, not simply giving a gut reaction.

A changed political context is part of the story as well: In 1997, the Conservatives were hated and Labour, if not loved, welcomed by a significant chunk of the electorate. However, the next general election comes in a very different political age; politics and political parties which makes it impossible for Cameron to generate a wave of genuine enthusiasm that would push him into government in the same way that Blair was able to. Caution, though, is due. These polls cover all 646 constituencies, but general elections are not won in Glasgow East or Surrey South West but the hundred-or-so marginal seats where only a few thousands votes separated the parties last time. Crucially, Cameron has managed to hang onto a lead (around 10%) in these constituencies, despite losing it nationally.

The Tory campaign is exceptionally well organized in these areas, and the party is pouring every last penny of its £18m war-chest, outspending Labour by millions.All this means that the general election campaign will be crucial. The last three elections have been forgone conclusions-the last time an election was won and lost during the course of the election campaign was when most of us were still in nappies, in 1992. All the more so given that there will be a new feature-televised debates between the party leader, which have proved to be game-changers in US Presidential elections. A recent survey showed that a large proportion of students are not planning to vote, but they are wasting an opportunity they might not get for another two decades. For the first time in years there is not only a genuine fight between the two parties, but a decent ideological gulf between them. Go register now at http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/

Friday, 26 March 2010

Not all spending is created equal

Image: Only vaguely related, but amusing.

"Cutting spending would harm the economic recovery" (most Labour ministers). True. But not all spending of any type has an equal impact on the economy. It depends how equally the spread.

If were to get rid of one of our Trident-carrying submarines, making up the difference by sharing one of them with the French navy, then this would have much less of an effect than say, cutting the equal amount from benefits. Benefits are paid directly into the pockets of millions of low income citizens who then spend it on day-to-day goods in British shops. The bulk of defence spending will go straight into the pockets of the board members; ordinary people would of course lose jobs (sailors, mechanics, and so on) but nothing like the number affected by benefit cuts. A similar logic applies to tax rises. Poorer people don't take their money abroad as much as the rich; they buy fewer luxury foreign-manufactured goods, go on fewer foreign holidays, and so on. It is therfore much better to tax the rich than the poor.

All this is really basic economics, but something that the government should be deploying in defence of its economic policy. Making a reasoned defence for cutting certain areas of the national budget than others not only reassures the markets that serious cuts will be made but makes it clear to the electorate that deficit reduction will take place in a way which not only will minimize the risk of derailing the recovery but be the most equitable.

Saturday, 27 February 2010

NewsJack Week 6: The Big Clunking Fist Returns



Published in The Student; 1st March 2010

Up until recently, Gordon Brown has been remarkable only in that every single piece of shit thrown at him by the media and opposition has stuck, to the extent that he should by now look like that 6ft turd of children's television, Bungle, of Rainbow fame. However, by some miracle, he's more than halved the Tory lead in the polls, and come out of the latest smear campaign cleanly, if not smelling of roses. Brown is alleged to have acted violently towards his staff, with the Chairwoman of the National Bullying Helpline claiming that several No. 10 staff had called her organization complaining about bullying.

However, it all went tits up for the enemies of The Great Leader when Christine Pratt, who looks like someone you'd end up in bed with at a shit middle-aged swingers' party in Coventry, was forced to admit that none of the complains were regarding Brown, amidst a wave of resignations from the NBH board. If the polls are anything to go by, this hasn't done Brown any harm at all: People don't want a shrinking violet as PM; they want someone passionate who will come out swinging for the country when times are bad. I quite like to think Thatcher probably had a switch-blade hidden away in her handbag, ready to shank anyone who disagreed with her or that Major glassed a few people in order to get the Maastricht treaty through. Or indeed that Churchill plucked out his enemies' eyes with his 'v for victory' sign and that, East-End style, Wilson spat vodka in people's faces and lit them up like a Christmas tree with his trademark pipe.

The best thing to come out of this is an absolutely hilarious Hong Kong news channel video that shows a series of mock-ups of what is alleged to have happened; Brown goes round punching people for no apparent reason, and he spectacularly throws a slow-typing secretary across the room. The whole thing reminds me of that Family Guy episode where the Griffins move to Texas and encounter Chuck Norris, who goes round punching small children with a third fist concealed in his chin.

Go on Gordo: Next time that smug Etonian bastard shits on your economic record, lean across the dispatch box and nut him back onto the opposition benches where he belongs.

Friday, 12 February 2010

It's not all Greek

Published in The Student; 16th February 2010

Ever since the dawn of the Greek debt crisis, the press has been flush with speculation that Britain is fast heading for the sinkhole that Greece, Spain and Portugal look to be heading down. However, such claims rest on a superficial and misleading comparison of the two coutries. For a start, both countries' public sector debts are high, but still worlds apart. Greece has a debt of 120% of GDP, with the UK's being about half that.

The maturity of debt that a country holds is also important to consider in assessing its position. Average UK debt maturity is high (about 14 years) compared to most other developed countries, double that of France and Germany, and many more years longer than Greece. The Greeks will have to deal with about 10% of their debt in their next few months; a huge amount in such a short space of time. Britain has far longer to service a smaller amount of debt. This means that it is much more expensive for Greece to service its debt; Britain's debt servicing will cost around 3 percent of GDP; Greece, about 12 percent. As long as the debt is affordable, it can continue to grow for a while and not do us much home. So, while Britain is indeed heavily indebted, it is actually in a much less presurrised position in terms of paying it back than Greece, France and even prudent Mrs Merkel's Germany.

Another difference is that as part of the Eurozone, Greece shares a currency with with fifteen other countries and so can't devalue its currency, which can help in boosting a country out of recession via exports. However, the UK is in a much better position in this regard given that its currency has lost about a quarter of its value in recent years.

Credibility and confidence matters. While it may not have been what it was, financial markets have reason to be more confident about Britain than Greece. The Greeks have long struggled with an uncompetitive and unproductive economy and, like other small countries, has suffered more from falling business and tax revenues. UK competitiveness is improving fast partly because of the flexibility of its labour markets, which means that companies can more quickly and easily change in response to the great shifts in the economy that we have experienced over the past two years. In the past, we have been willing to grit our teeth and think of England while enduring public spendings cuts. The Greeks have not yet proved this and, if the mass protests and strikes against planned cuts are anything to go by, aren't likely to any time soon. Crucially, financial markets know this and will take it into account in their assessments of both countries.

Look beyond the superficial, and it is plain for all to see that Britain and Greece are in very different positions and it would take something huge for Britain to fall into the same trap that Greece is in now. This is why I'm sick to the back teeth of scaremongering journalists and point-scoring opposition politicians talking-down Britain for their own purposes. Conjouring the spectre of Greece makes for good headlines and might grab some votes for an desperate opposition with a rapidly shrinking poll lead, but is fundamentally misleading and does not do anything to help the recovery.

Sunday, 7 February 2010

Mo for your Money

Published in The Student; February 9th 2010

Biopics of British politicians are few and far between because British politicians like Mo Mowlam are few and far between. In five or ten years, deep into the next Tory decade most of the middle-ranking nobodies that have staffed the Labour governments will be forgotten and Mo Mowlam will be one of the few that will be remembered, helped in part by Channel Four’s excellent docu-drama, Mo. Starting in the months before the 1997 General Election, we are shown her discovering and dealing with cancer, seeking peace in Northern Ireland, and her decline after her retirement from politics.

I’m not sure if there’s any higher praise than saying that Julie Walters looks and sounds exactly like Mo Mowlam. She gets the high-pitched, prissy voice, the distinctive back straight, tits-out gait and her straight-talking political style all almost absolutely right. Walters is supported by an excellent cast; Steven Mackintosh is a wonderfully slippery Peter Mandelson and Walters’ Billy Elliot co-star Gary Lewis takes on a deservedly prominent role as Mowlam’s deputy, Adam Ingram. David Trimble, Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams are cardboard cut-outs, but at least they looked and sounded like who they were supposed to be (with the exception of Adams, who appears to be played by Groucho Marx).

The most disappointing part, especially for someone who came to it mostly for the politics, is how politically sparse it is. The bulk of the programme is devoted to her work in Northern Ireland, but she doesn’t appear to do anything. She seems to have been little more than a court jester; whipping off her wig and opening her legs in order to unnerve the delegates, but not seeming to do much that contributed to the success of the peace process apart from the occasional inspiring speech. This does her a tremendous disservice, vastly underestimating what she did to bring the two sides together. She was a joker, and she was unorthodox, but she was also a highly skilful negotiator, but this does not really come across because Walters spends most of the time running between rooms batting her eyelids at all and sundry.

There’s a fair number of clumsily-directed scenes: one in which she watches a child with Down's syndrome singing karaoke, and another near the end when she re-visits a care home for young adults she’d opened. These come across too cheesily when compared to rest of the programme, which, by and large, is very shrewdly and sensitively put together. Nevertheless, there’s some extremely harrowing moments that are beautifully done. Not previously knowing what radiography involved, watching Walters having a transparent plastic mask fitted onto her face, and then hearing the menacing electrical buzz of the machine alongside the strains of pop music played to relax her was really quite unnerving and brilliantly executed.

More than one national newspaper reviewer has described Mo as ‘hagiographic’ (portraying someone as a saint). This, though, is very unfair to director Philip Martin. Yes, one of the biggest potential problems with dramas like these is that the central character’s flaws are ignored and the whole thing turns into an hour-long canonization, but Martin manages to avoid this quite well. He shows how she lied to the country about the seriousness of her disease (her cancer was malignant, but she told the media it was benign) despite the potentially perverse influence it could have had on her judgement. More than once, Mo shows that no matter how much she genuinely cared about the future of Northern Ireland, she was a politician first and she aimed for success for what it might lead on to in her career.

It is largely faithful, both to her and to history, and gives us an insight into her life (though perhaps not her work) without cheapening her by laying it on too thick, a balance which other biographies don’t strike nearly as well as Mo does.

Response Article: Pope's comments on Equality Bill



Published in The Student; February 9th 2010

Bethany’s argument rests on an apparently reasonable, but ultimately unsustainable comparison between the Catholic church and political parties. She is quite right in saying that left wing parties could not be expected to hire a member of a far right organization, though this is not a logical comparison. A far right party member could not be expected to make a positive contribution to a leftist party, but there is no reason to suggest that a gay man could not make a contribution to the Catholic church just because he was gay. This is because the Church’s body of teaching is so much more than just opposition to gay sex.

Both parties and religions are broad organizations with a variety of different competing strands of thought, and just as the Labour party wouldn’t stop me from joining it because I didn’t believe in one of its polices, the Vatican should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis that a candidate doesn’t conform to a single, tiny strand of its moralizing. To make this argument one has to assume that the sole purpose of Catholicism is to stop men from sticking their nobs in each other. It’s not.

NewsJack 3: The Dorothy Perkins Taliban


Published in The Student; February 9th 2010
Having already had the big-hitters (Blair, Straw, Campbell, Goldsmith) round for questioning, the Chilcot inquiry looked like it was winding down. However, just as it seemed it was more or less over, steaming across Parliament Square on Monday morning came that ever present shit-stirrer of British politics, Clare Short.The former International Development Secretary is like her own one woman Taliban, popping up from the hinterlands of Westminster every now and again to chuck an IED into British politics. It might be the vast, steel-grey helmet of hair, or the mouth that never moves (even when she speaks), or the fact that she seems to plough relentlessly on, no matter what gets chucked in her way, but I'm convinced she's made out of pure granite.

She's not human at all; not born of the loins of man and woman, but fashioned under the heat and pressure of a Polynesian volcano, dug up by a tribe, dressed in outdated Jaeger suits and dodgy Dorothy Perkins scarves and shipped of to the UK to be a low-ranking Cabinet minister.
Her testimony to the inquiry was classic Clare. True to her volcanic origins, it was if she'd been storing away her spleen for the seven years since she resigned frrom the Cabinet, ready to errupt at the opportune time. Thar she blew; splattering the panel with claims that Blair leaned on Goldsmith to change his legal advice on the wear's legality and that the Cabinet and Parliament were misled into supporting the war, all in that wonderful through gritted teeth Birmingham brogue, the stenographer left in her wake, struggling to catch up. She's clearly a bitter woman with an axe to grind who didn't have the courage to resign when it would have an the biggest impact, but she neverthless has been one of the few mainstream figures willing to expose the corrupt and undemocratic nature of the way decisions are taken in our country.
Stir on, Clare, stir on.

Response Article: Worthless Qualifications



Published in The Student; February 2nd 2010

Matthew is quite right in pointing out the contradictions of New Labour's approach to higher education, but it is a shame that it rests largely on fairly crude, well-worn caricatures of subjects like Media Studies. About half of the second- and third-years of my Social and Political Science undergrad degree revolved around media sociology: I found it an extremely engaging and academically demanding subject that required at least as much work as my tough Economics and Political Philosophy modules. Equally, my undergrad university offered Art History courses, which were also extremely rigorous and one of the hardest courses to pass.

The issue is not so much the content of these subjects, but how they are are taught and examined. There is no such thing as a 'hard' or 'easy' course; courses can be as difficult as those who set the exams and mark the coursework are willing to make them. If a Physics degree is more higly valued than a Media Studies one, it is not because knowledge of Neptune's atmopshere is any more valid than knowing about how newspapers affect our political beliefs, but because more is expected by the examiners, which does not have to be the case. We need to look at making all subjects more demanding and come to a clear, more consistent position on the sorts of skills that a degree - any degree - should demand from its students; create some sort of national benchmark that a course should reach in order to be studied as an honours degree. This would be a much more valuable exercise than indulging in academic McCarthyism, denouncing some subjects and praising others.

NewsJack 2: The Red Light Inquiry



Published in The Student; 2nd February 2010

When not in the midst of an essay crisis, I've been spending most of this week watching the very nearly but not quite interesting Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War. I was surprised, given how important an occasion it is, that it seems to be taking place in a grotty, windowless basement. The hastily knocked up set, the dim, gloomy atmosphere and the sense that you're seeing and hearing things (at least, in theory) that have been hitherto hidden reminds me of those seedy sex booths you get in the red light district of Amsterdam, with Sir John himself ruling the roost as an ageing, flabby madam.

Right on cue, along comes a tanned, wrinkling, swaggering Blair, like an aging lothario past his prime, but desperate to prove that he still has it; flexing in front of the panel and repeating his "I did it once, and I'd do it again" message over and over again. The panellists are underwhelming; the woman to the right of Chillers, the one with grey, straggly hair, looks like she's been dragged in from the street.And this is essentially what the Chilcot Inquiry is: a faux, contrived peep show designed to show a bit of leg in order to make us think that we know what really went on. Enough to satisfy us, without actually telling us anything we didn't already know.

Talking of things we didn't already know, I'd like to draw your attention to the plight of WikiLeaks. Set up in 2006, the website has recieved millions of documents from concerned whistleblowers. BNP membership lists, notes from meetings of the secretive Bilderberg group, documents relating to illegal toxic waste dumping in Africa and the contents of Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account have all been put into the public domain, thanks to WikiLeaks. However, it has now run out of money and is appealing for donations. Go to http://www.wikileaks.org/ and donate anything you can to keep this vital resource alive.


Sunday, 24 January 2010

NewsJack 1: Government Wife Swap


Published in The Student; 26th January 2010

Welcome to NewsJack, a thinly disguised attempt to produce a student version of Charlie Brooker; your place for unabashed partisanship, poorly founded assertions and jokes about cocks. Talking of cocks, we did originally plan to call it NewsWank, but some of our writers thought it too childish. We also came up with AngstLad: Diary of an angry young man, but that sounded too much like an upmarket, under-age gay porn film (Dir. Roman Polanski), so we came up with the suitably vague but still a little bit wanking-related NewsJack.

Over the water Obama, predictably, is starting to flounder. Commentators were surprised that the Democrats got trounced in the special election to replace Ted Kennedy, but they shouldn't have. Democratic candidate Martha Coakley was so pathetically wooden that Republican Scott Brown could have publicly sodomised a puppy in the middle of Boston and he probably still would have won. The loss of the party's 60th vote in the Senate means that Obama's plan to extend healthcare to the poorest of Americans is likely to be fillibustered into history by Republicans. A tragedy, but a self-inflicted one; those most vehemently opposing the plan are the people it is designed to help. If half the Deep South ends up walking around with tumours coming out of their chests, then its their own sodding fault.

Obama's relationship with America is like those random friendships you have in Freshers' Week that never get beyond the first week of lectures. You meet up initially, get off your face together and are best pals in the world for a few days, and then when the bedlam of the start of uni dies down, you realise you have nothing in common and spend the rest of your four years having to smile awkardly when you bump into them in Tesco. The bottom line is that Obama is too progressive for the people that elected him; he is way ahead of the majority of the country which is still stuck in 1787, when any form of government, no matter how good its intentions, is inherently suspicious. And you really, really need a gun so the King of England doesn't come over to push you around.

The same is happening here; the UK is esentially a progressive country, but we are about to elect a group of poor-people-hating, gay-bashing, neo-liberal shits who would be much more suited to governing the denizens of Louisiana than those of Lincolnshire.

Perhaps we could arrange for some sort of governmental version of Wife Swap, where we send Cameron and his cronies to Washington and get Obama into No. 10? Let's hope so.

Impersonal Politics

Published in The Student; 26th January 2010

On Friday, Channel 4 is screening its highly anticipated docu-drama Mo, detailing the political life of the former Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam. She was a highly unorthodox politician who once told Gerry Adams to “fuck off” and removed her wig during the peace process talks to stop the two sides arguing. Mo Mowlam was one of the great chararacters of British politics: forthright, passionate and much loved by the public. Sadly, we’re losing these figures to death and retirement, to be replaced by a Parliament packed to the rafters with hundreds of party machine-honed clones.

Ever since Blair came on the political scene, members of the commentariat have complained about the increasing influence of personality in politics. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. Blair, Cameron et al are carefully crafted products who give only the illusion of personality.

Mo Mowlam, Dennis Skinner, John Prescott, Anne Widdecombe, Tony Banks; they all developed in an earlier age of politics, less structured according to the needs of the 24 hour news media. Now, politicians must always look and sound perfect and can't ever break beyond the cookie-cutter role that has been made for them; no mesage can go out before being nipped and tucked by party hacks and PR consultants, lest they lose face in the press.

Parties, as well as the media, are to blame for all this. The whips' insistence on iron discipline and slavish loyalty to the party line means that people who want to go into politics speaking their mind don't. Most of our politicians spend their whole lives cossetted in the embraces of their party; they graduate from university, go straight into politics, working for a minister or think tank, get elected to Parliament, and in the process, they get stripped of anything that makes them interesting, endearing or likeable.

What happens is that we create a political class of people who seem completely alien to the public. If they can't empathise with the men and women who run their country, then a mass disconnection from politics is inevitable.

I'm not arguing that politics should all be about personality. Politics should always be first and foremost about policy, but the role of personality in politics does, and always has, sat beside policy, never in place of it. Personality and policy have always functioned as a diarchy at centre of politics, with each part feeding off one another. When you take personality out of that relationship, politics ceases to function properly.

Too much, too soon


Published in The Student; 19th January 2010
Published in TCS; 21st January 2010

Last week, 14 year old Arran Fernandez became the youngest person since William Pitt the Younger to be offered a place at Cambridge University. The Surrey teenager was offered a place to study physics at Fitzwilliam College, breaking the 237 year record set by the 19th century Prime Minister.

As a former Fitzwilliam student, I’m very much concerned about the motives that have driven the decision of my college’s admissions tutors. I hope that the boy’s welfare has been taken into account as much as the fact that they might have the next Stephen Hawking on their hands almost certainly has. He will be at least 4 years younger than the next youngest undergraduate at the college, and won’t be able to participate in the two activities which-for better or worst-define student life: sex and drinking. University is much more than just academic study and any student-no matter how talented and promising they are-deserves the opportunity to experience everything these three years can offer.

He is clearly very talented, but I don’t see how making him wait 2 years more would make a lot of difference except giving him the chance to be a proper child and enjoy life that he almost certainly has been denied thus far. He could do another round of A-Levels in some art-based subjects, he could go travelling-do something outside the narrow world of maths and exams that it looks like he has been confined to up to now and certainly will never escape from when he starts at one of the most demanding universities in the world.

Professor Joan Freeman, author of Gifted Children Grown Up, studied the lives of 35 child prodigies and found the majority of them ended up as disappointed adults. She asks 'what will they do for an encore if they achieve so much so early?' The National Association for Gifted Children advises parents not to put their children in for exams at a very young age. NAGC’s education consultant Jo Counsell calls pushing children like this a 'cruel experiment' which ignores children’s social and emotional needs.

The press reaction to all this was very telling. All the papers that covered the story did so in lurid detail and gushing tones, fawning over his string of impressive exam results, appended by a disturbing picture of Fernandez when he was 5, holding both his GCSE results slip and a teddy bear. Last year, we were faced with the uncomfortable image of 10 year-old Hollie Steel bursting into tears live on stage during the Semi-finals of Britain’s Got Talent. If we’re not careful, we risk regressing back to the 18th century notion that children are merely mini versions of adults and should be expected to do everything adults can do.

There needs to be a very strong reassertion-both in education and the media-that childhood is a separate sphere of life in which people have very different needs that should be protected and catered for. Fernandez’s parents were being highly irresponsible entering him for GCSEs at 5 years of age, but it is the education system’s fault for making this possible at all; children are sat in school halls at the age of seven to do their KS1 SATS; a time when their horizons should extend no further than kicking a ball and making jokes about poo. Our lives are already pressurised enough at it is without exposing people to it when they’re barely out of nappies.

Dan Nicholson-Heap is the former Vice President of Fitzwilliam College Student Association.

Film Review: Avatar


Published in The Student; 19th December 2010

If you’ve read my previous reviews, you’ll know that I usually don’t like overly-hyped films, and no other film has had such an extensive build-up as Avatar. The film press had been reporting for months before its release about how James Cameron has spent many years and tens of millions of dollars developing the technology needed for the film.

There’s a limit to how good a film can be when it focuses on how an evil mining company is colonising a planet called ‘Pandora’ looking for an element called - sigh - ‘Unobtanium’. I actually lol'd in the cinema when I heard that. There’s nothing original about the story line: the mining company embarks on a programme to produce clones of the aliens that look and act like the Na’vi - the native inhabitants of Pandora - which can be controlled by humans.

When one of the scientists is killed, his twin brother - a US marine (who is confined, for some reason, to a wheelchair, ostensibly because it makes him seem vulnerable and with more of a hill to climb or rather, to roll up) is brought in to replace him. His Avatar is sent into the jungle to win over the natives, but ends up becoming one of them, falls in love with the girl and leads the fight against the nasty colonisers.

The plot suffers in much the same way as Cameron’s previous blockbuster Titantic did: flimsy characters; wooden acting; stilted, awkward dialogue. If you don't concentrate, you might be tricked into thinking that he's come up with something original. There's an attempt à la Lord of the Rings to create a complete world with its own history, language, culture and religion. Switch your brain on, and it will become clear what it is: a clumsy pastiche he seems to have cobbled out of one of those accidentally racist anthropology textbooks from the 1930s. The Na'vi are essentially taller and painted-blue versions of African 'natives', with vague notions of all lifeforms being tied together by a natural force: something that could have been interesting, had it been clearly and meaningfully explored. Toward the end, Cameron just seems to give up entirely trying to produce anything remotely cerebral and chucks in what he thinks the public want: scene after scene of shit getting blow up by a guy with a buzz cut.
He also makes some heavy-handed attempts to insert references to modern American imperialism, with one of the mining executives saying that the humans needed to fight 'terror with terror'. Again, this could have worked quite well, but his direction is not subtle enough to have anything deeper without it coming across as contrived and tokenistic.
Don't get me wrong; this is a stunning film in a visual sense. He makes full use of his new technology with lavish flying scenes and beautiful recreations of the rain forest, but there's not much else of worth besides. You'll enjoy it, but only if you turn off your brain and put on the 3D glasses.

Injury Time Column: Cowardly Coyle

Image: Googled

Published in The Student; 19th January 2010

IT WAS a strong sense that, despite all the problems that returning to the Premiership after an absence of forty years entails, Burnley were exceeding expectations. However, that was shattered by the dramatic and unexpected departure of hero manager Owen Coyle last week.After rumours of approaches from Celtic and the Scottish FA earlier in the season, Coyle promised fans that he wouldn’t leave the club. Hence the bitterness felt down Harry Potts Way over Coyle’s move westwards to relegation-scrap rivals, Bolton.

As I see it, there’s two ways you can look at the former St Johnstone manager’s decision. Firstly, you could see it as him taking the chance he might not have had again to return to the club he has had an affinity with for many years - he played at Bolton during the 1990s.Alternatively, less charitably and probably more accurately, you can see a move by an ambitious young manager desperate to stay in the Premiership and willing to leave a vulnerable club in the lurch to do so.

Adding insult to injury, Coyle wiped Burnley out of all its management and coaching experience; taking Assistant Sandy Stewart and Coach Steve Davis with him to the Reebok stadium. This seemed fairly unnecessary and should be reason enough to take Coyle’s previous professions of affection for the club with a pinch of salt. The decision to take on Owls’ boss Brian Laws to replace looks rushed and ill-thought out, and, given the alternatives, unimaginative. Chairman Barry Kilby and director Brendan Flood had two choices; an experienced, venerable old-hand like Alan Curbishley (who would have been many fans’ own choice for the job) or repeat the gamble they made in 2007 with Coyle and go for a young, ambitious lower league manager with a name to make for himself; Huddersfield Town’s Lee Clark was mooted; they also should also made more of an effort to keep Burnley favourite Davis at the club by offering him the post.

Instead, they’ve abandoned the logic that worked with Coyle and picked a ‘safer’, more experienced but, relatively speaking, much less successful manager. Coyle always reminded me of a ferret; darting eyes, twitchy features, excitable, always running up and down the touchline. Laws more resembles a down-at-heel carpet salesman from Middlesborough. The wrong choice for a club that needs a charismatic, likeable leader like Coyle to rally it through its relegation fight.

Burnley, not the most uplifting of places, was at its brightest during the play-offs last season. When the club had something to fight for, the whole town pulled together. They now have something to fight for again. Regardless of recent managerial politics, it will be that same spirit, with the same players and the same fans that Burnley will bring to the relegation fight. It was enough to get them, against the odds, into the Premiership, and it will be enough to keep them in.