Tuesday 24th June 2025
Blog Page 1695

Seeing a man about a dog

0

Raise your hand if you haven’t read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time. This first foray into adult fiction by Merton graduate Mark Haddon sold 30,000 copies, won the 2003 Whitbread award and the 2004 Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for best first book, and gave its author the economic freedom to chase up his creative pursuits. And the hardcover was puffed by two luminaries who span the spectrum between literary fiction and non-fiction – Ian McEwan and Oliver Sacks.

The downside to writing a bestseller is inevitably the public scrutiny you incur when you attempt to follow it up. Haddon’s second novel, A Spot of Bother (2006), is something entirely different from Curious Incident: it’s a quieter novel about a middle-aged hypochondriac and his web of relationships, which garnered great praise for his characterisation (a repeated commendation of Haddon’s fiction).  

When I ask Haddon whether it’s been difficult to follow his initial success, Haddon replies that he’s often been asked this question and he wonders what is meant by it. ‘Compared to how hard it would have been writing if Curious hadn’t been published?’ he says, ‘Or hadn’t won a prize? Or had sold thirty thousand copies?’

Haddon makes it clear that writing is always hard. ‘Unless, perhaps, you’re a genre writer, who has some of the hardest questions already answered when you start the next project.’ On the topic of the success of Curious, Haddon ‘not only had the freedom to write what I wanted, instead of what might pay, but, more importantly, it gave me the freedom to throw stuff away when it wasn’t working. And I’ve done a lot of throwing away over the last eight years.’

The novel, ostensibly written by Christopher, a teenager who attempts to make sense of a world which is inscrutable to him, describes itself as a ‘murder mystery novel’. Christopher is ‘15 years and 3 months and 2 days old’ and knows ‘all the countries of the world and every prime number up to 7,507’. Christopher may be a maths whizz and want to become an astronaut, but daily human expression and motivation escape him. McEwan’s endorsement aptly describes Christopher as having an ‘emotionally dissociated mind’.

I gave the novel to my aunt who is raising a boy with high-functioning autism, not because my cousin is much like Christopher, but because of Haddon’s sympathetic and uncanny abilities to reproduce what I assumed ‘it must be like’ to be inside a similar  situation (disregarding the impossibilities and perhaps presumption of such an exercise).

The particularity of Christopher as a central character means that the novel is often pigeonholed as a novel ‘about Asperger’s’. But Haddon would prefer it if he novel didn’t have the term affixed to it. ‘Though I have pretty much giving up fighting my corner in this respect,’ he admits, ‘Curious Incident was so freakishly successful that I feel oddly detached from it now and must leave it to fight its own battles. Saying any novel is about a single issue diminishes the book and narrows readers’ expectation. I find it particularly disappointing with regards to Curious because I purposely excluded the words Asperger’s and autism from the text. Christopher defines himself as having a few behavioural issues. To me it’s about disability, but it’s equally about being an outsider, about difference in the wider sense, about seeing the everyday world with fresh eyes, about the process of reading itself.’

Asking Haddon what sort of ‘habits of art’  he subscribes to, he says that while he longs for ‘a few habits of art’, he feels mostly as if he is ‘stumbling through a dark and ill-managed forest trying to find some object whose identity remains a complete mystery until I stumble on it. I tell myself I do so many different creative things because I get bored or because I have so many diverse interests or for some other rather self-aggrandising reason, whereas I suspect I’m merely post-rationalising the fact that I often have absolutely no idea what I’m doing.’

This is a modest way of saying Haddon is an experimenter. And indeed he has a reputation for producing works which seem to explore new territories – whether that’s a new genre, form, or subject.  Though Haddon’s extraordinary success with Curious Incident might make one think of him as a one-hit wonder, his creative involvement crosses generic boundaries. In addition to his novels, Haddon has published a volume of poetry (with the fabulous coordinative title The Talking Horse and the Sad Girl and the Village under the Sea),  written and produced a play (Polar Bears), written a film for BBC 1 (Coming Down the Mountain), and written numerous books for children. Incidently, in addition to this, Haddon has won four BAFTAS, paints, and sculpts.

This exploration of new territories, says Haddon, is intentional. ‘Like most writers I write for a reader like myself, and as a reader I’m continually drawn to writers who want to extend the boundaries of what writing can do.’

Haddon lives in Oxford with his wife, Dr Sos Eltis, who tutors at Brasenose, and who (as I can attest) is a great favourite in the lecture theatre. I ask Haddon if Oxford – a city which can be hospitable to writers, but can be overly hospitable to Sunday Times conventionalism – suits him. Haddon gives a resounding yes. ‘I don’t think it has anything to do with writing. I like the fact that it’s metropolitan but on a small scale: the University, bookshops, the theatre. I enjoy the sheer throughput of people from various corners of the world. I like the fact that my kids are at school with other children who comes from pretty much every conceivable background. On the other hand, I can run to Port Meadow in five minutes and be in the empty countryside in fifteen, and we are far enough upstream for me to swim in the river without getting leptospirosis or mercury poisoning.’

Place is clearly important to Haddon. His upcoming novel, The Red House, is set in the Black Mountains near Hay-on-Wye. ‘I don’t think there’s a single aspect of place which isn’t included somehow: the landscape, the history, the architecture, maps of the area, the weather.’  

According to Haddon, the novel is about ‘a middle-aged and long-estranged brother and sister who go on holiday with one another and their respective families. Family holidays are often, of course, more stressful than being in an air crash, so stuff happens. It’s a novel about belonging and not belonging, about being a child, about being a parent, about grief and sexuality and how we can find the extraordinary in the seemingly ordinary. It’s also a novel about my love of the English literature and the English language.’

According to rumour, Haddon (an English graduate) once harbored dreams of being a mathematician. ‘Sadly,’ says Haddon, ‘Curious (and answering several hundred letters about the maths in Curious) largely killed off my interest in maths. Even at school I was only a reasonably good mathematician so it was never a likely proposition.’

The idea of crossing over between art and science, he says, has become ‘a rather sexy topic over the last few years for reasons I don’t quite understand.  Of course there are crossovers and similarities and lights which can be thrown on one discipline by another. All these things are creative and difficult and involve and great deal of slog and brief moments of insight, which often connect unexpected in unlikely ways which come to seem somehow utterly right in retrospect.’ But Haddon’s profusion of interests and media makes him an optimist. ‘I think it’s time to turn the tide and start celebrating how thrilling different all these disciplines are,’ he says.

A Proteas-e of a cricketing summer

0

Given that the stormy weather has dashed hopes of cricket being played in Oxford so far this term, our attention can turn to England’s upcoming season. The main event is surely the three Test Series against South Africa, which begins on July 19th at the Oval.

England struggled in Asia this winter, losing 3-0 in the Test Series with Pakistan in the UAE. Most worrying of all, the previously infallible top six struggled, with no batsman reaching three figures. Matters improved upon winning the One Day Series and the Twenty20, and normal service was resumed in beating Sri Lanka by eight wickets in Colombo last month.

Before South Africa arrive however, England face three Tests against the West Indies, starting at Lords on May 17th. This will be no walk in the park for Andrew Strauss’ men, with West Indian lynchpin Shivnarine Chanderpaul a thorn in the side of any bowling attack. Currently top of the ICC Test Batting Rankings, Chanderpaul will be looking to find the form he enjoyed in England in the summer of 2007, when he averaged almost 150 with the bat. However, England should have the class and quality to win, and win comfortably, with the fearsome bowling attack of Darren Sammy’s men no more. Gone are the days of Holding and Marshall or Ambrose and Walsh, and England’s batsmen should be able to make hay given that the West Indian conveyor belt of top-class fast bowlers appears to have ground to a halt.

It’s vitally important that the England batsmen regain their form, as South Africa represent a completely different challenge. The fine form of England’s top five propelled the side to reach the summit of the ICC World Rankings, and more of the same will be required to defeat a very strong South Africa side. Strauss’s year-long run drought, stretching back to the Brisbane test of 2010 without a century, is worrisome. If England are to defeat South Africa and retain top spot, they need a captain that is confident, scoring runs and not worrying about his own game.

More importantly, it is not only Strauss that has been struggling. In previous years, the run-scoring of Cook and Trott has been constant, occupying the crease and making opposition bowlers toil for hours, even days at a time, aided by Pietersen’s ability to take an attack to pieces, Bell’s class and elegance and Prior’s dynamism down the order. If they are going to blunt the threat of the leading bowler in test cricket, Dale Steyn, and his accomplices Vernon Philander and Morne Morkel, the England batting line-up will have to be firing on all cylinders. In terms of batting, A.B. de Villiers, Jacques Kallis and Hashim Amla are all class acts. James Anderson, Graeme Swann and Stuart Broad, backed up by either Tim Bresnan or Chris Tremlett will have their work cut out. It would be foolish to take the South Africans lightly, with Graeme Smith’s double-centuries in consecutive tests back in 2003. This is not to forget the two England captain’s scalps he’s taken on tours here, food for thought for the English attack.

With over two months until the Test series starts, trying to pick a winner is extremely difficult. What is certain, though, is that the South Africans will prove a sterner test than this England side has yet had to face up to. Sparks will fly.

Hotdogs, hotels and heartbreak

0

It is said that being a fan of a lower league football club is characterised by disappointment, unfulfilled dreams and frustration. For Oxford United fans, home games provide a constant architectural reminder of their status: a gaping chasm where a Fourth Stand should be. A structurally unsound fence separates the grass canvas of dreams from the Bowlplex car park. The old owner of the team, Firoz Kassam, generously offered to build a fourth stand should United ever make it to the Championship. As he watched his side slide through the divisions and finally out of the football league, his hands remained firmly in his pockets. It was a bizarre reversal of the Exodus, the Tanzanian Hotelier shepherding the Us from their spiritual homeland at the Old Manor Ground in Headington and into his slavery at the self-titled Kassam stadium. United fans still sing the terrace chant evoking the memory of the celestial London Road Stand, as if its mere mention may restore the glory it once witnessed, the echoes conjuring the spirit of Dean Windass, Joey Beauchamp or Chris Basham. Kassam remains a hated figure at United, a landlord still collecting tithes from the Club whose soul he sold, demolished and in its place built a Gala Bingo.

Yet after three years in the wilderness (the dark wastelands of English football patrolled by teams like Ebbsfleet and Kettering), with players who can only nominally be described as footballers, Oxford exploded back into the football league. Ask any United fan the best day of his life, and he’ll tell you it was either the Conference playoff final or the day the refreshments stand started selling ‘Rollover hot dogs’. 33,000 in Yellow and Blue stormed the heart of English football, the ultras of the South Midlands Hit Squad standing side by side with University professors to watch their beloved team annihilate a weak York City side.

Two seasons in League 2 came to a head in Saturday’s game against Southend with a playoff position in contention for both sides. Not even the grumpiest of fans could complain about a campaign that saw victories home and away over fierce rivals Swindon Town, managed by their ‘il duce’ Paulo Di Canio. Recently described as one of the most explosive rivalries between Chippenham and Leighton Buzzard, the two teams share the A420, but little else. Yet despite defeating the Robins, Oxford dipped in form. The loss of key players James Constable and Alfie Potter has contributed to Oxford’s current position, two points behind Crewe Alexandra in the last playoff position. Oxford’s game against the Essex shrimpers was an old fashioned six pointer at the top of the table, with Crewe away at other promotion hopefuls Torquay.

Despite the delay trying to find a parking space at the Kassam (the main car park was reserved for the competitors of the county bowling competition at the Bowlplex, while the overspill was playing host to the Joyces and Quinn Macdonaghs of County Antrim), we arrived in time to soak up the pre-match atmosphere. If you are lucky, you might bump into one of the local celebrities who frequent the Kassam, Olly the Ox or Timmy Mallett, the kind of actor (or comedian, who knows?) who struggles to make ends meet outside the Pantomime season. Yet despite the dip in form, and despite the shortage of Rollover hot dogs in the refreshments aisle there was optimism around the ground, the kind of blind faith reserved solely for lower league football fans, and as the huge yellow flag descended over the Oxford Mail Stand, amplifying the nonsensical chants of faithful yellows, everything seemed to be in place for a wonderful afternoon of football. That was, of course, until the game started.

Theo Walcott said of watching Barcelona play Arsenal at the Emirates a few seasons ago that it was like watching a game of FIFA, such was the technical skill, responsiveness and insight of the players. If that is the case, then watching Oxford play Southend United was also like watching a game of FIFA, but a game in which all the buttons are stuck and the competitors are otters. The football was basic, Oxford lacked incisiveness, and creativity was wastefully sprawled across the treatment table. With Michael Duberry, a contemporary of prehistoric man, providing a strong but slow spine the Shrimpers enjoyed vast swathes of possession and the lion’s share of the chances, going into the break with an uncompromising 2-0 lead.

The Oxford crowd, with nothing to shout about, were distracted first by the referee (who ‘stank of shit’), then the linesman (a ‘fucking wanker’ by trade), and finally the Southend goalkeeper, a busty and curvaceous character who incensed the Kassam faithful by constantly reminding them of the score line. Despite greeting every touch with derogative comments about his weight and skill, Cameron Belford (on loan from Bury) was not easily distracted, saving brilliantly from the prolific Asa Hall at the death.

The game ended 2-0 to Southend, the second half characterised more by the vitriol of the crowd than by the football, and after trailing for 90 minutes Crewe got a last minute equaliser against Torquay. The Us promotion hopes are now out of their hands, their fate in the hands of Railway Men at the Alexandra Stadium on the last day of the season. Crewe had gathered steam while Oxford’s season derailed, another disappointing end to a disappointing year. It looks like another year with Morecambe, Aldershot and Barnet, and another year of gypsy encampments and moronic stewards.

A very New kind of rugby

0

It may not be as historic as Football Cuppers or as well publicised as the Boat Race, but on Tuesday evening the Oxford University Rugby Club held its annual Fancy Dress Mixed Touch Competition at the Iffley Sports Complex. It was a very well attended event, with 13 colleges taking part. Although the inclement weather to begin with may have discouraged some spectators, as well as forcing a move onto the astroturf pitches, it turned out to be a fine evening of touch rugby under the sun.

Predictably, there were varying levels of commitment to the theme of fancy dress on show. On one pitch, a team of Super Mario and Luigi lookalikes took to the field against a medley of cops and robbers, and similarly crazy pairings were seen throughout the evening. To see a team of Smurfs (complete with blue body paint and iconic white hats) surging up the pitch and slinging the ball along the line was somewhat surreal and extremely entertaining. Other notable costume efforts included a school uniform themed affair and a college dressed as the infamous 118 118 duo.

Some colleges did, however, decide to dress up in their respective college rugby strips which was slightly disappointing, but overall this didn’t have an impact on the jovial atmosphere.

Despite this prevailing atmosphere of frivolity, there was still a substantial, almost two foot tall trophy to be won. The semi finals were contested by Balliol versus Worcester and St Hugh’s against New College. New and Balliol progressed to the final and, in a tense, close-fought affair, New College prevailed to claim the rather long-winded title of 2012 Fancy Dress Mixed Touch Competition Champions. There was also a competition for best fancy dress, which was won by the aforementioned Smurfs from Oriel. Jesus College dressed as their namesake through a creative use of bed sheets and tea towels and so clinched second prize.

As a mixed competition, the tournament rules stated that each college should have at least two female members amongst the seven strong team on the pitch. Yet it seemed to me the ratio was significantly higher in most teams, with girls making up around half of the average college squad. This reflected the spirit of inclusivity and the welcoming atmosphere that surrounded the tournament.

However, the OURFC is hoping to go even further in this respect. There are plans in the pipeline to run a program next year targeted at rugby novices and newcomers, in an attempt to increase interest and involvement in rugby at the university. The program would build up to this same tournament in Trinity 2013, playing on its capacity to offer inclusiveness and a bit of outlandish fun, mixed with competitive rugby. The Fancy Dress Mixed Touch Competition certainly seems to have fulfilled these aims in this year’s successful Cuppers. Bring on next year, where hopefully this year’s recalcitrants will enter into the spirit fully and embrace fancy dress.

How François Hollande can save the Eurozone

0

You’d be forgiven for not following the French presidential election very closely. The contenders have savagely attacked one another’s policies, parties and even mental faculties (Luc Mélenchon of the Left Front party called far-right Marine Le Pen a “half-demented bat”). Yet beneath the bravado, they have campaigned on strikingly similar platforms. The uniformly anti-globalisation, antifinance, anti-EU rhetoric that has characterized the campaign is depressing, and now that Mr Mélenchon has gone from the race, so has the comedy.

However, there is reason to be optimistic about François Hollande’s likely victory. He differs from Sarkozy in one important respect: he has promised that he will not ratify the European fiscal pact being pushed by Germany. Hollande has said that it will either have to be renegotiated from scratch or accompanied by an additional treaty with tools to promote economic growth. Like a Keynesian messiah come to save Europe, he told his supporters in Paris “austerity cannot be our horizon”.

Economists will be breathing a sigh of relief. The low spending and higher taxes demanded by the EU fiscal pact means less income for households and firms, which depresses economic activity. This isn’t just first year economics jargon, it’s a statistical fact. Crunch the numbers and it becomes clear that countries that impose austerity see a fall in their income.

 Why then, have Cameron, Merkel and Co. been telling voters that austerity, like exercise and getting your five a day, is for their own good? The economic recovery via austerity myth is based on two misconceptions. First, that profligacy by careless EU policymakers is the cause of the current recession. This is simply not true. Spain had low debt and a budget surplus before 2008. Ireland was in a similar position, while Italy stood out for its favourable deficit status. However, the financial crisis damaged their banking systems and caused a fall in growth, which forced the countries into deficits. Debt is the symptom, not the cause.

 The second mistaken belief is that high debt spooks the bond markets, leading to high interest rates that hurt the financial system and inhibit growth. Yet Japan has maintained a whopping debt-to-GDP ratio of 230% without a bond crisis. America’s budget is in a far worse mess than the Eurozone’s, but American bond yields remain low. Investors are more likely to judge a country’s ability to repay its debt on its future growth prospects than on its deficit. Perversely, higher spending may be the best way to reduce debts in the long run.

 As Spain and Britain fall back into recession and bond yields continue to jitter, it is hard to know what it will take for policy makers to acknowledge that their austerity policies have failed. Hollande deserves credit for putting growth back on the table. Merkel et al. should listen up.

Sides of the story: Jeremy Hunt & Murdoch

0

Facts of the matter

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has become embroiled in accusations of partiality in his “quasi-judicial” role arbitrating NewsCorp’s bid to take over BSkyB. This follows the publication of texts and emails between Hunt and a key NewsCorp lobbyist, revealing the extent of their relationship. The pair were so cosy they were even planning to see Take That together, making the day of every hack in the land not employed by NewsCorp. More damaging for Hunt, however, is the “absolutely illegal” message implying that Hunt passed on information to NewsCorp before presenting it to Parliament. Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman has called on him to resign, and – though David Cameron has so far resisted – pressure is building for an inquiry into Hunt’s actions. Much of the dirt has wound up stuck to Cameron himself, whom the inquiry revealed to have spent much of the past two years hobnobbing, Christmas-partying and horse-riding with the Murdoch court. The perfect mix of poshness and corruption has been almost too much for the press.

Gems of the week

Too many observers have been happy to just write off NewsCorp or the Coalition, but The Telegraph’s Matthew d’Ancona has come out with an insightful piece on the wider implications. “Hints of shoddy motives and shady dealings at the Leveson Inquiry are alienating voters”, runs the by-line, and it’s an under-represented point. The accusations rolling out of the Courts of Justice, encompassing the heart of British government all the way back to Margaret Thatcher, are hardly likely to invigorate an already cynical public. Cameron’s problem is that “incompetence is the Rorschach test of politics: we see in it what we want to see.” With the horrors of the Budget still in the background, it is all too easy to construe the BSkyB scandal as yet another example of toffs ruling for other toffs, and doing it badly at that. By the end of the week we shall know whether it will lead to more anger or just more apathy.

Wouldn’t wrap chips in it

An honourable mention to The Sun here for a display of blind loyalty to its master. While every respectable paper lead with Murdoch at the Inquiry on Wednesday – The Guardian went with “Minister for Murdoch” – this bastion of British newsprint reported instead on Chelsea’s win in the Champions’ League. What else can the editors do, I suppose, than ignore the whole affair and go back to pretending that football and soft porn count as news. The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee recounts a litany of Murdoch’s sins, howling that this  scandal will ‘make the foundations of No 10 tremble’, which is all just so much hyperbole. The scandal may well take down a few individuals, especially if Cameron is called to testify before Leveson, but the basic pattern in which parties and papers fall in and out of love, bending and breaking the rules to court.

Interview: Alan Duncan

0

Judging by the pasty grey complexions on show at Portcullis House, nobody in Whitehall had seen a ray of sunlight in weeks. Except, of course, Alan Duncan, whose glowing tan tells of a man who is travelling the world as Minister for Interna­tional Development. His CV glows golden as well, and reads like a first class ticket to Cabi­net: St John’s PPE, Oxford Union President and Kennedy Scholar to boot. And yet, after an un­successful leadership bid in 2005, the sun isn’t yet shining on his political career, and he is stuck playing second fiddle to Andrew Mitchell at the Department for International Develop­ment (DFID).

Duncan may be short of power at DFID, but he is certainly not short of money. While most ministries are struggling with shrinking budgets, DFID is struggling to find ways to spend its rapidly growing allowance, which from 2013 will amount to 0.7% of British GDP. The increased funding is the result of a mani­festo pledge by the Conservatives – in 2010, they attempted to try and detoxify the Tory brand after the notorious 2005 election campaign, widely criticised for straying too far to the right. But a recent study by Politics Home in association with YouGov indicates that while the policy pleases Labour and Lib Dem voters, it doesn’t satisfy Tories nearly as much. 18% of Conservative voters have a very unfavourable view of international aid, higher than for other political parties. Duncan explains the trend as an “out of date view that all aid is left-wing, not very practical and squandered.” But Duncan and his all-Tory ministerial team are working with the DFID to change this stereotype, win­ning plaudits the world over for the efficacy and transparency of the DFID’s programs. “We don’t give any money to African dictators, to stash away in Swiss bank accounts. We aren’t naive like that.” Winning the argument on in­ternational development (particularly against those to the right of the Conservative party) has taken on even greater priority for in recent months, as the government finds itself ever more frequently branded as ‘compassionless’ for its neglect of the poor and vulnerable.

I tried to explore the idea of compassion with Duncan by asking how much priority a government should give to its citizens. He au­tomatically replied, “We give 99% priority to home because less than 1% of spending goes to international development. No one really who is reasonable can baulk at this level of spend­ing going to international development.” But I wasn’t baulking at how large our aid budget is, but rather at how small. When I made my point clear, Duncan seemed rather bemused: he is so used to defending his government’s interna­tional development policies from right wing attacks, he didn’t really have an answer pre­pared for those who say we don’t give enough. “It doesn’t make sense for us to be too much out of line with other countries who help poorer countries.” However, he concedes that 0.7% of GDP, a figure which emerged from calculations made by development economists several dec­ades ago, is a completely arbitrary figure.

But 0.7% of GDP will give DFID enough funding to eclipse most other departments, most nota­bly the Foreign Office, which it will out spend by a factor of six to one by 2013. This reflects a growing belief in Whitehall that power is pro­jected most effectively not just through mili­tary and diplomatic channels, but through economic assistance as well. British diplomats across the developing world are finding their power usurped by a new rival whose gargan­tuan funds provide a loud voice. When I ask Duncan whether DFID is overtaking the FCO as the primary instrument for Britain’s overseas influence, he produces a diplo­matic reply. “One of the great successes of the coalition government is to have built the na­tional Security Council structure which binds the FCO, DFID and the MOD into a coherent partnership with a single united British pur­pose”. But of course the objectives of the three departments are poles apart, and near impos­sible to reconcile. The reality is that a constant power struggle exists on the ground, which the FCO seems bound to lose.

However, one area in which these depart­ments do have overlapping goals is in the pro­motion of ‘British values’, a powerful cocktail of moral absolutism and neo-colonial paternal­ism which jars at times with the ideals of the global south. In fact, he says, “We do not give budgetary support to any country we disap­prove of for whatever reason”. Often, this inter­ventionist stance puts Britain in the awkward position of promoting democracy with one hand, but castigating democratic decisions with the other. Nowhere was this better exem­plified than in Uganda, where a bill which tried to introduce the death penalty for homosexu­ality was riding through parliament on the crest of a wave of public support. Britain and her allies intervened, and the bill is gone, for now. Duncan argues that Britain’s actions are not hypocritical because “you can’t look at for­eign policy as a black and white moral choice, there are all sorts of grey areas where you have to balance human rights with freedoms.”

While Duncan may have a nuanced approach to diplomacy, many British celebrities certain­ly seem to see it in exactly the black and white moral terms which he so readily dismisses. No one more so than Bob Geldof, whose tireless campaigning to help the African poor has been heavily criticised by many in the aid indus­try for oversimplifying the problems at hand. Duncan, however, is clearly a fan. “I think the criticisms of the likes of Bob Geldof are trite…He makes a younger generation appreciate the importance of development.” But I hesitate to subscribe to the idea that awareness is an end in itself. Raising western awareness will often put political pressure on politicians to react, but the reductive understanding which ‘awareness’ implies will often encourage the wrong reaction.

This is certainly the case with the Kony 2012 campaign, which Duncan respects as a dem­onstration that “we now live in a world where people who do dreadful things are not going to get away with it.” But what exactly the Kony video has done in bringing anyone to justice is unclear. For Duncan, “proper prosecution through the ICC, will hopefully be a powerful force in making people govern their own coun­tries properly.” But the ICC’s authority is being undermined in Africa by accusations that it en­gages in selective justice by only investigating atrocities in that self-same continent. Duncan shrugs off the criticism, suggesting it is just a reflection of the high number of conflicts that Africa has endured in recent decades.

Only after a barrage of policy questions on Af­rican issues does Duncan finally admit that he “doesn’t lead on Africa”. For a man who was blag­ging, he put up an impressive effort. It is the same sort of blagging skill which allowed him to cruise through his finals with only 4 weeks of revision. “I had originally left eight weeks to re­vise for finals but then the Labour government lost the vote of confidence so the campaign started…. It was going to be one week for each paper and it ended up being one week for two papers”. In the end, things worked out for Dun­can at Oxford. I have the feeling the same will happen in politics.

Text a question about LGBT for a cocktail

0

Exeter College LGBT Society hosted a cocktail evening on Wednesday with the aim of encouraging members of the college to discuss LGBT issues.

Students were encouraged to text a question and place a cocktail order. The answer to their LGBT-related issue was then delivered with a cocktail of their choice.

The event was held on Wednesday and follows in the footsteps of the Christian Union’s ‘Text a Toastie’ event, which is held every Monday and offers free toasted sandwiches to students who pose questions about the Christian faith.

The LGBT Society hopes that the ‘text a cocktail’ event will persuade students to consider any questions that they may have concerning the LGBT community.

The event has been warmly received by students in the college. One of the event organisers explained, “The response so far has been absolutely amazing. People are really excited about the cocktails and it will be a great way to get people thinking about LGBT issues and raise money for a worthwhile charity.”

He added, “Exeter College is a fantastic place for LGBT members. It is very welcoming, we have a prominent LGBT community. Hopefully we will be able to keep text a cocktail going for many weeks to come, and with the response so far this looks very likely!”

The response from the CU was equally positive. Emma Hodgson, a CU rep from Exeter, commented, “It’s good to have the opportunity to be well informed on big issues like this, and communication is a crucial element in uniting the college community. I’ll certainly be ordering a cocktail!”

Another student commented, “I think it is a great idea. Our LGBT reps are very welcoming to all, and this gives us an excuse to enjoy a cocktail with them.”

The event asked for a donation of £2 for each cocktail and the money raised will go towards the Helen & Douglas House charity, which provides hospice care for children and young adults.

Union finds Madeline Grant guilty

0

Madeline Grant, an English student at St Hilda’s College, was found guilty of bringing the Oxford Union into disrepute with her election manifesto at a disciplinary hearing at the Union on Wednesday. Her draft manifesto for the position of Librarian declared, “I don’t hack, I just have a great rack”. It was later altered to “I’m no hack; I’m just here for the craic”.

Sam Heitlinger, St Anne’s student and frequent Union visitor, called the disciplinary hearing “absurd”, stating, “Maddy’s manifesto was clearly meant to be taken with a pinch of salt. The Union has been crying out for someone who is willing to poke fun at it; she is a breath of fresh air. It seems to me that the reaction to her campaign is symptomatic of the Union’s tendency to take itself far too seriously.

“The powers that be ought to be applauding someone who is prepared to ridicule the Society’s embarrassingly dull ‘manifestos’. Anyone who knows Maddy would understand that she is not sexist and her manifesto was obviously a joke.”

Henry Tonks, a first year historian at Corpus Christi College, told Cherwell that he was not surprised about the disciplinary hearing, but added, “I equally don’t think they should be doing so. It’s another case of the Union taking itself a bit too seriously really – the campaign/manifesto was clearly done in a spirit of fun.”

Grant herself told the Daily Telegraph, “It’s ridiculous. At great expense they are paying for former Union officials to come to Oxford and sit on the committee which will decide my fate. I’m wondering if I should leave the Union. The main speakers they have lined up are Geri Halliwell and Nelly Furtado, so I wouldn’t miss much.”

Isabel Ernst, President of the Oxford Union, released an official statement, saying, “Madeline Grant breached the Union rules by speaking to the press without written permission from the President. It is the President’s and Standing Committee’s task to make sure the rules are upheld, and the President is thus obliged to bring action against her.

“The disciplinary hearing will only consist of ex-Officers who are still in Oxford, so will be at no cost to the Union or Union members.”

On Thursday, the Oxford Union Press Office confirmed the result of the hearing. Its statement read, “Following Madeline Grant’s disciplinary hearing last night, we can confirm that she was found guilty and fined 120GBP overall. The panel has now adjourned to investigate potential evidence that arose during the hearing with regard to a administrative procedure.

“However the panel has not decided yet who will be called back and we cannot confirm that anyone in specific is under investigation for the time being.”