Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 1994

Guest Columnist: Jancis Robinson

Oxford is responsible for how I have spent my working life. I was one of the first three undergraduates to embark on the three-year Maths & Philosophy course in the supposedly rabble-rousing year of 1968 (a very small rabble was roused in sleepy Oxford). By 1970 I had a boyfriend with a particularly generous father. As a result, I was treated to many a superior meal and indeed my first journalistic billet was as restaurant correspondent of Isis.

As with so many people who end up devoting their lives to wine, it was a glass of red burgundy that made me realise how wonderful it could be. In fact more than a glass, a shared bottle of Chambolle-Musigny, Les Amoureuses 1959; a wine that would be far too expensive for me ever to order in a restaurant nowadays.

‘It was heady and sensual on the one hand but on the other I could tell that there was something rewardingly cerebral about it too’

One sniff was enough to show me just how very different this liquid was from student plonk. It was heady and sensual on the one hand but on the other I could tell that there was something rewardingly cerebral about it too. This single liquid was expressing history, geography, psychology, economics – and maybe even maths and philosophy.

I was especially lucky at St Anne’s to know Alison Forbes, who was in the then very unusual position of having been brought up with wine. Her father was a member of The Wine Society, and had encouraged her to assess wine in an intellectual way. She would buy two half bottles of wines that were similar but different and show me how they varied.

I even remember standing in front of Oxford wine merchant G. T. Jones in the High Street (do people still call it ‘The High’?) chanting the bottle colour mantra ‘green for Mosel, brown for hock’.

‘The subjects of wine and food were viewed as irredeemably frivolous by undergraduates of the early 1970s’

I did not get up from the table at the Rose Revived resolved to become a wine writer. The subjects of wine and food were viewed as irredeemably frivolous by undergraduates of the early 1970s. It would have been seen as a waste of my Oxford education to have pursued a career in either of them, however much I wished to. I frittered away three years organising holidays because I liked travel, and then, as was the prevailing fashion, dropped out.

I then spent a year in Provence, and came back resolved to look for a job in either food or wine. In December 1975 was lucky enough to be taken on as assistant editor of a wine trade magazine.

At the interview, the publisher had told me they had had many applicants for the job. ‘Either we have to take on a wine expert and teach them how to write,’ he explained, ‘or we get a trained journalist and have to teach them all about wine. You of course are neither of these things. But nevertheless you’re the favourite for the job.’ I tried not to look anything like as surprised as I was.

I immediately embarked on wine courses that would eventually culminate in my becoming the first-ever non-trade Master of Wine. After I’d been there a year, I asked the publisher why he had chosen me. Was it my glorious career on Isis? My temporary job with the Good Food Guide? My year in France? None of the above. Was it, I asked hesitantly, the fact that I had worked temporarily for a London wine merchant? (Technically true but in fact I was just a barmaid in a City wine bar they owned.) No it wasn’t. Apparently what had clinched it was that I had been in charge of the skiing side of Thomson Holidays and they thought that I was obviously such a good organiser that I would organise myself to learn about wine.

If he had thought during the interview to ask me whether I could type, my life would have been very different.

Jancis is offering readers of Cherwell a special discount on a year’s subscription to Purple pages, the meatiest bit of www.JancisRobinson.com. Usual price is £69 but those who enter the promotional code STU2210 at https://www.jancisrobinson.com/static_pages/join will get 12 months’ unlimited access to ‘the wine website worth paying for’, according to the Los Angeles Times for just £49. But there is much to explore on the free pages too.

 

 

The drugs don’t work

Simon Singh is speaking at the Union at the invitation of the Invariants, Oxford’s maths society, and well he might, having popularised subjects as diverse as cryptology and Fermat’s Last Theorem in his books. Yet tonight he is here to talk about a very different book. Trick or Treatment: Alternative Medicine on Trial – ‘in retrospect,’ he muses, ‘the subtitle was a bit unfortunate’ – has sparked a fiery debate that has spread across the whole field of libel law. The world is watching: the Goodman Library is packed to the rafters, and a queue stretching halfway down St Michael’s Street has to be turned away.

Everything started with an article he wrote in The Guardian to accompany the book’s release in 2008. He took on the world of chiropractic, calling the claims of some chiropractors to be able to cure ailments ranging from asthma to ear infections ‘bogus’, and denouncing such practitioners as ‘fundamentalists.’ The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) was distinctly unamused, and threatened a libel writ. Although they were offered the chance to refute Singh’s article in the paper, the chiropractors declined and began an action that has dragged on for almost two years and sucked in £100,000 of Singh’s money.

He will not retreat. Everything about him seems geared for combat: his trademark squarish spike of hair is bristling, and he speaks with the electric energy of a young debater. This is no longer just about his own pride, though: he is a figurehead for Libel Reform, an alliance lobbying to make cases like Singh’s simpler and fairer for the defendants. Libel Reform – whose supporters include the likes of Stephen Fry and Carol Ann Duffy, alongside politicians from all the major parties – have picked out crippling problems with the British system for libel law.

‘For a start, libel law is unique in that the defendant is assumed guilty until proven innocent’

For a start, says Singh, libel law is unique in that the defendant is assumed guilty until proven innocent. In his case the judge has ruled that his article called the BCA dishonest – ‘they’re incompetent,’ he says, before conceding, ‘they don’t know what they’re doing, but they’re not dishonest’ – and he is on the back foot from the first ball. Libel action in the UK is so easy for the plaintiff that we are attracting what Singh calls ‘libel tourists’; foreigners who wish to sue foreigners and do so in London’s courts. ‘London has become the libel capital of the world.’ Worse still is the cost: he shows us a graph with a British spike almost as striking as his hair. The average case costs two million pounds, about a hundred and forty times the European average. This is a price only the richest can afford, and so principles are in danger of becoming a luxury. For Singh and Libel Reform, this is a struggle for freedom of speech.

‘There is a huge amount of misinformation, disinformation about alternative medicine…there are bizarre claims being made’

Just how rude about alternative medicine is he? I have brought along a bottle of tincture of St John’s Wort acquired at a high-street chemist. It smells like Calpol, costs £5.99 for 50ml and undertakes to lift my mood. I was hoping that Singh would say something offensive about it, but he’s too reasonable: ‘it might work, but be careful of side effects such as reducing the effect of the birth control pill.’ ‘I’ll bear that in mind.’ This is not clear from the bottle, though, and this is what gets to Singh. ‘There is a huge amount of misinformation, disinformation about alternative medicine…there are bizarre claims being made.’ One of his colleagues was sued for libel after questioning whether a vitamin pill could really cure HIV, and spent over half a million pounds in legal fees.

‘People say it’s natural, so it must be safe. Arsenic is natural, cobra poison is natural, and they’re not safe. It’s been around for thousands of years so it must be safe? So has blood-letting’

Singh is forthright about the failings of the industry: ‘people say it’s natural, so it must be safe. Arsenic is natural, cobra poison is natural, and they’re not safe. It’s been around for thousands of years so it must be safe? So has blood-letting.’ He looks again at my bottle of stardust. ‘There is some evidence that some herbal medicines are effective, but they’re complex cocktails of chemicals. There are serious side-effects.’ He believes he is presenting these scientific facts about the efficacy of these products for the good of the consumers, and that the suppression of such statements is an infringement of his basic freedom of speech. ‘I’m being sued for libel for writing for the public’s benefit.’

‘If I lose this case it will be the worst thing I have ever done’

There is, of course, a flipside to Libel Reform’s proposals. The word ‘democratisation’ has a comforting ring to it, but an inevitable consequence of opening up libel cases to the public is that it will be easier to prosecute as well as to defend. In the dog-eat-dog world of student journalism, this could mean that writers have to walk on eggshells to avoid provoking lawsuits every time they put pen to paper. Every Union hack could threaten to call in his lawyer at even the faintest insinuation from Auntie Evelyn. Singh freely admits that his lobby could result in a ‘litigation society’ like America’s, but believes that people in Britain are ‘basically reasonable’ and that freedom of speech is worth the risk.

The stakes are high. While only four libel cases take place each year, hundreds of threats are issued, and this leads to a ‘chilling effect’ as journalists become more timid about writing things they could end up having to retract later. If he wins, Singh thinks, this could be a great step towards the democratisation of libel law. If he fails, he runs the risk of setting a lethal precedent for others like him. ‘If I lose this case it will be the worst thing I have ever done.’

If you would like to support Simon Singh and his campaign, you can sign up at www.libelreform.org/sign

How to Cook… Pea, Mint and Feta Risotto

Marc Kidson shows you how to make an effortlessly impressive risotto that will make you think of Spring.

Recipe Re-cap:

Pea, Mint and Feta Risotto, Serves 2

1tbsp olive oil
a knob of butter
1 medium onion, finely chopped
Two generous handfuls of risotto rice
1 pint of vegetable stock (plus extra water if needed)
Salt and black pepper
Frozen peas
Feta
Fresh mint

1. Heat the olive oil and the butter in a large saucepan until butter has melted.
2. Add the onion and fry gently until soft.
3. Add the risotto rice and stir to combine with the onions, oil and butter.
4. After a few minutes, when the grains are starting to turn translucent, begin adding the stock a bit at a time, waiting for the risotto to absorb the last lot before adding more.
5. When all the stock has been added, taste some of the rice, it should be creamy with a slight firmness in the grains, if it is too firm continue adding water.
6. When the risotto is done, add the frozen peas to the pan, breaking up any clumps and mixing them into the rice.
7. After 3 minutes or so the peas will be cooked through, tear some mint and add it to the pan. Then add the feta.  Stir well for 1 minute,
8. Remove from the hob, serve immediately. Garnish with mint leaves for an extra touch.

For the Love of Film

Laurence and Matt talk about what Avatar could possibly mean and why, and review Up in the Air and The Book of Eli.

Music by Inokentiy Aksentiev.

Eye Candy: Nude knits!

On a Sunday of grey skies and even duller winterwear in Oxford, Emma’s on trend ensemble of nude tones and slouchy knitwear was a breath of fresh air. By pairing her Topshop body-con skirt with a cosy beige jumper, she kept the look casual whilst achieving the holy grail of winter dressing – warm and stylish.

It’s so refreshing to see someone veer away from the standard

‘Oxford on a Saturday’ uniform of jeans, Uggs and a hoodie and, while showing off her long legs in a mini-skirt, the flat over-the-knee boots kept her outfit young and relavant to this season’s trends. While the new season pastel tones are causing big fashion ripples, it’s still far too cold for floaty skirts and blouses so neutral knitwear and black opaque tights like Emma’s are a great way to try out the look early. For more spring inspiration, shorts of all shapes and materials are set to be huge, so get your legs out in a well cut pair while keeping toasty with some wooly tights and winter boots.

If I May… A Comment on Politeness

In May 2000, the BBC News website was abuzz with commentary.  An unidentified study had just been released, based on hidden-camera evidence, which concluded that “the people of the UK are getting ruder”. The website’s description of the unknown study claimed it had found “a nation of unhelpful, surly and downright rude people,” and encouraged remarks on this issue from Brits and foreigners alike. The results are quite humorous. Here are a few of the best:  

We British wait our turn in the queue.  – Chris Klein, UK 

The English have always had good manners. Even as they colonised and brutalised the world for two hundred years they were well behaved. Which proves that manners and goodness are two very different things.  – Roy Posner, USA 

 

Quoting a hotel guide’s description of the attitude of waitstaff: “It would be ever so nice if you weren’t here”. – Peter C. Kohler, USA 

 

“I dread coming back to my own country, as its denizens are without doubt the rudest, most surly, arrogant and unfriendly people on the face of God’s earth, especially in London. We could all take some lessons on behaviour from places like Australia and Canada.” – Andy Foot, England 

 

Strong words indeed. But these are but four comments in a sea of about 100. Taken as a whole, we have a widely contradictory web of strong opinions. Are the British polite or rude? Based on these comments, they are both and neither.  

 

Writing only a month ago, British author Geoff Dyer weighed in on the issue himself, publishing a piece in the New York Times entitled “Letters from London: My American Friends”, largely a commentary on his experience with Americans at home and abroad. His conclusion? Americans were “friendly and hospitable… also incredibly polite”. The author continues, “I always feel good about myself in America,” and gushes, “Americans are not just friendly and polite — they are also charming”. 

 

In contrast, “Civic life in Britain is predicated on the idea that everyone just about conceals his loathing of everyone else.” He bemoans the “ostrich stoicism” of his homeland, which manifests itself a “highly stylized willingness to muddle on, to put up with poor quality and high prices … to proffer…apologies not as a prelude to but as a substitute for improvement”.  He even compares the quiet endurance of modern-day Britain to Soviet Russia.  There was no available comments section for this piece, but I can only imagine the author managed to rankle a few bosoms.  
 

Overall, however, this sort of anecdotal evidence really doesn’t seem sufficient to answer our question of comparative politeness. And as to the question itself, it could use a bit of refining.   

 

Politeness theory is field at the intersection of social anthropology, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics that attempts to look more closely at what it means to be polite. The field took off in the 1978 work Politeness: Universals in Language Usage by Stephen Levinson and Penelope Brown.  

 

This kind of politeness is perhaps divorced from our common idea of “politeness,” and has a relatively formal definition: “the expression of the speakers’ intention to mitigate face threats carried by certain face threatening acts toward another” (Mills, 2003). A “face threat” is a potentially embarrassing encounter that could be injurious to one’s prestige, honor, or self-projected identity.  

 

Brown and Levinson speak of two primary types of face: positive face and negative face. Positive face is a need to feel appreciated, and negative face is a need to feel as if one’s actions are unimpeded by others. These can be thought of as the basic wants in any social interaction. On an abstract level, valuing positive face (positive politeness) can be thought of as showing solidarity, while valuing negative face (negative politeness) is closer to showing respect.

 
Beyond defining the concepts of positive and negative politeness, Brown and Levinson controversially apply them. While their descriptions are heavily qualified, they even go as far as to classify American culture on the whole as a “positive politeness culture” and British culture (as seen by Americans) as a “negative politeness” one. From an American standpoint, the United States is a “friendly back-slapping culture,” whereas Britain is inhabited by “standoffish creatures”. These cultures are further described as the difference between an “egalitarian, fraternal ethos,” and a “hierarchical paternal” one.  

 

A negative politeness culture demonstrates various linguistic trends, among them indirect requests, apologetic language, and many variants of thanks, designed to minimally intrude on the personal space of others. More specifically, the British on the whole employ hedging (“if I may…,” “perhaps,” etc.), tag questions (questions at the end of a sentence, such as “it’s cold outside, isn’t it?”), passives (spitting will not be tolerated), and plural pronouns (we regret to inform you) to a greater degree than other cultures. 

 

This is all backed up by somewhat empirical data: corpus studies (using a large body of written work) have shown that there are nine times as many tag questions in colloquial British English as in colloquial American English (Tottie and Hoffman 2006). British people are more concerned with reducing the level of coerciveness in requests, and “call on a varied repertoire of external modifiers to accomplish their goals” (Reiter 2000). There is a verifiable preference for the above strategies in conversation. Also common is the use of off-record politeness, in which a seemingly ambivalent statement actually functions as a request: “wow, it’s getting cold in here” might itself signify that one’s host should turn on the heater.  

 

American English on the other hand, spoken within a “positive politeness” culture, tends to emphasize attending to the interests of the speaker, optimism, inclusion, reciprocal promises, and the avoidance of disagreement. Its goal is to make a person feel included and wanted—in other words, to save positive face.  

 

Despite these seeming empirical results, however, we must take all of this with a supreme grain of salt. In many ways, to speak of a national culture defined by specific linguistic features is almost nonsensical. Even Levinson and Brown acknowledge this in their original remarks, finding it more useful to focus on groups within a society—be they defined on socioeconomic or cultural terms.  

 

The comments from the forum and the traitorous British man quoted above fail to acknowledge that they are necessarily extrapolating from a minute set of interactions to the trends inherent in an entire culture. Likewise, comments on the predominating politeness strategies within a society must acknowledge that they are a not-particularly-representative aggregate, and must be careful not to make value judgments. And finally, the very idea of politeness is heavily colored by cultural norms, and we must be careful not to let these carry over into our evaluations.   

 

In broad summary, when it comes to commenting on culture-wide politeness, everyone is wrong. Certain trends are visible, but we must be very careful as to how we interpret them. It may be more fun to say that an entire country acts a certain way, but it is far from accurate.  

 

In my personal experience, the British people I have encountered in Oxford, who have been brave enough to talk to a tall, awkward-looking American, perhaps out of common interest, have displayed tendencies that I, from the perspective of a white male from the central United States, would associate with respect for my personal boundaries, and, while some I have met have perhaps paid less attention to making me feel welcome and at home, I recognize that this is a statement which concerns a small and not-representative minority.  

The XI of the season so far

The hardest thing about choosing a side like this is the formation. So I’ve ignored that problem and cheated. This side is set out as a 4-4-2, but please not that the wing positions are considered interchangeable with those of their more advanced counterparts in a 4-3-3. Anyway, I digress. Here’s my team of the season so far:

GK: Joe Hart (Birmingham City) – Harsh it may be to overlook the form of Shay Given, but it would be even harsher to ignore Birmingham’s remarkable unbeaten run. Predicted by many for relegation at the start of the season, Birmingham sit a credible 8th with the league’s 3rd best defence, having conceded only one more goal than Chelsea and Aston Villa. For this, much credit must go to Hart, an immense presence in the Birmingham goal. Indeed, he has played so well that he is being touted for the World Cup. In the future certainly, but not yet. Remember what happened to a promising young Scott Carson?

Narrowly missing out: Shay Given (Manchester City) – New team, same terrible defending, same brilliant goalkeeping. Except this time, his brilliance seems destined to be rewarded with trophies.

LB: Ashley Cole (Chelsea) – Once again deserves the tag of ‘greatest left back in the world’. It has taken years for him to accomplish the feat at Chelsea, but much of the credit for his renewed brilliance must go to his importance in Carlo Ancelotti’s wingless system. Always an excellent defender, Cole is now once again a serious terror going forward, and is even chipping in with goals. This one against Sunderland would have made Dennis Bergkamp proud, no kidding.

Narrowly missing out: Patrice Evra (Manchester United) – Who else? With Gael Clichy injured and generally short of form the men most would name the finest left backs in the league have proven once again to be so this season.

RB: Branislav Ivanovic (Chelsea) – Unsuprisingly, another Chelsea defender makes the cut. Even playing out of his preferred position, Ivanovic has looked excellent. Many centre halves look cumbersome when switched out to full back, but not this man. As threatening going forward as he is solid at the back.

Narrowly missing out: Glen Johnson (Liverpool) – Personal injury and his club’s poor form have cost him further honours, but my he looked good in September didn’t he?

CB: Richard Dunne (Aston Villa) – Making his old club look silly for selling him with each towering performance. Supposedly surplus to requirements at City, Dunne is currently leading the level best defence in the league, while various players are failing to fill his boots at Eastlands. Would presumably have taken great satisfaction in scoring against City too.

Thomas Vermaelan (Arsenal) – The commanding centre half Arsenal have been dying for. He may only be 5″10, but showed in consecutive wins vs Bolton that even Kevin Davies can’t overpower him. It would of course, be selling Vermaelan short to note only his brilliant defending. He is utterly composed on the ball, and possesses the sort of left foot most strikers would die for. Tied with the man above him in this list for signing of the season.

Narrowly missing out: Roger Johnson (Birmingham City) – It is a measure of how good Birmingham’s defence has been that this place could easily go to centre half partner Scott Dann. Alex McLeish was ridiculed for the side of supposedly championship level players he was assembling. Nobody is laughing now.

CM: Cesc Fabregas (Arsenal) – In utterly magnificent form. Clearly relishing the freedom Arsenal’s formation allows him, Fabregas has scored an incredible 11 league goals already from midfield, indeed he either scored or assisted 22 out of Arsenal’s first 55 league goals this season. Utterly dominates games, and as seen in his personal demolition of Aston Villa, is the spark that is giving Arsenal hope in the title race

James Milner (Aston Villa) – As if Martin O’Neill didn’t love him enough already, he had to go and add another layer of versatility to his many talents. Versatile often means Jack of all trades, master of none; not true of Milner. If anything he has produced the best form of his career in the centre of Villa’s midfield. Not only his club manager’s favourite, but also the apple of Capello’s eye too.

Narrowly missing out: Alex Song (Arsenal) – So close to making this side. Song provides the muscle that Arsenal otherwise lack, but don’t let anyone tell you he can’t play football. He makes Denilson look average in more than one area. Fast becoming a huge fan favourite to boot.

Otherwise notable: Tom Huddlestone, Wilson Palacios, Scott Parker, Lee Bowyer
RM: Aaron Lennon (Tottenham) – At his best this season Aaron Lennon has been utterly unstoppable. Just ask Erik Edman and Sylvinho what it’s like to chase this man on his day. Lightning fast, capable of dribbling in either direction, and now a decent crosser of the ball, Lennon should be an absolute lock for the World Cup.

Narrowly missing out: No-one really. United’s Valencia in patches, and at a push.

LM: Craig Bellamy (Manchester City) – This is where I’m cheating. Is now back to playing up front, but has spent much of the season to date as a left winger and has been absolutely fantastic. City have produced the most dazzling football of the season, with much of it flowing through Bellamy’s rocket-powered boots. It’s just a shame Bellamy has never been able to settle long enough to keep this form going. He would have had twice the career.

Narrowly missing out: Ryan Giggs (Manchester United) – Still got it. In receipt of more awards and rightly so. Still the man United turn to if Rooney is firing blanks.

CF: Wayne Rooney (Manchester United) – Though speaking of Rooney, he hasn’t fired many of those this season. It’s only January and Rooney has already comfortably eclipsed his previous best goal tally. He promised that he would make the most of becoming the main man and has done just that, scoring 19 in the league and dragging his otherwise dour side into title contention. Indeed one would ask ‘Cristiano who?’, were it not for the fact that Rooney so often seems to be ploughing a lone furrow this year. For England though, his form can only be good news. Keep it up Mr Rooney, South Africa awaits.

Didier Drogba (Chelsea) – At his best Drogba is brutally effective, just ask Arsenal fans who sat and watched two clinical finishes pushed Chelsea to comfortable victory. Though he is not just capable of scoring from anywhere; his all round play has been widely credited as crucial to Chelsea’s barnstorming form. The only mystery is how they are doing so well without him, but that speaks more for the side’s overall quality than any deficiency in the Ivorian. His return should still be the push that keeps Chelsea ahead of the rest this year.

Narrowly missing out: A joint award here, to Carlos Tevez and Darren Bent. The former in the goalscoring form of his life, and the latter showing, again, what a quality Premier League goalscorer he is when actually playing. 

Vanity Fair editor speaks at the Oxford Union

If Anna Wintour is the most notorious of American magazine editors, characterised by her razor sharp bob and the supposed inspiration for Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada; then Graydon Carter runs a close second as the boisterously hairded editor of Vanity Fair for nearly eighteen years, and the apparent inspiration for the rather thinly veiled Clayton Harding in Toby Young’s How to Lose Friends & Alienate People.

Canadian-born, Carter began his journalism career at Time before moving to Life in 1983. During his stint as editor of The New York Observer, he took over Vanity Fair from Tina Brown, who had edited the

publication for eight years.

Carter’s Vanity Fair has been noteworthy for combining high-profile celebrity cover stories (which Carter admits are often there because they sell more copies – he’d
rather not have film stars on the cover if he can help it) with serious journalism and stunning photography. Since his accession, the magazine has won ten National Magazine Awards and has never really been out of the spotlight – who could forget the Miley Cyrus photo scandal or the nude Keira and Scarlett front cover?

Graydon’s editorials have become increasingly political in recent years, and he has authored a book called What We’ve Lost: How the Bush Administration Has Curtailed Our Freedoms, Mortgaged Our Economy, Ravaged Our Environment, and Damaged Our Standing in the World. He was also an executive producer of 9/11, the Emmy award-winning and highly acclaimed film by Jules and Gedeon Naudet about the 2001 terrorist attacks.

A many with so many strings to his bow, Carter’s speech was not one would expect from a man so embroiled in the world of celebrity and media. He spoke with a reverence for the glory of the past, a little about his work as editor, which he declared was really not a job at all, and his sadness about the loss of great young minds to the world of banking. It was an inspiring talk, from a deeply intriguing man.

 

 

Hoon and Hewitt: tactical error?

Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt didn’t fail. They won. And their victory may well have been the final death knell for the Labour Party.

While Gordon Brown is still Leader of the Labour Party and Hoon and Hewitt are still on the backbenches, the “coup” attempt succeeded in allowing key figures to extract a number of promises out of the Prime Minister. Foremost amongst these has been the move away from what was loosely labelled as a “class war strategy” to the new labour politics of Mandelson and Blair.

This change in tactics is a mistake and ignores the key determinant of the Labour vote in elections in the UK, turnout. Voter Turnout in 2001 and 2005 was 15 percentage points lower than the trend rate for the past 50 years. This didn’t appear to hurt Labour at first as it benefitted from middle class voters who found themselves unable to vote for a Tory party in disarray. The voters who are no longer voting at all are those from low income groups who have lost their voice, Labour’s core vote. Most worryingly for Labour, it is the young working class voters who are most disaffected. Worrying because those who don’t vote in one of their first three elections tend never to vote. Worrying because Labour is losing a generation of voters.

And where’s the proof you ask? According to Mori, if there were an election tomorrow and turnout was 50%, we’d see a Tory majority of 100. A 78% turnout sees a Labour majority of 25.

Maybe it’s time for Labour to man the barricades.

Wake up and smell Massachusetts

There a certain constants in this world that keep us sane.

The rising sun; David Dickinson’s complexion; the Daily Mail’s editorial ‘direction’; and the deep blueness of the politics of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. However on Tuesday 19th January 2010, the Bay Staters delivered a political surprise of Goliath proportion. For the first time since 1946, Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in the Union, elected Scott Brown (R), instead of Martha Coakley (D), as its Senator. It was a landmark victory for the Republicans, no question, but more significantly it figures as the largest shot of caffeine for the current administration, and every other Congressman and Senator seeking re-election. It is time to take note – and here’s why. 

 

The Democratic Party hold the White House, the Congress and the Senate and though Obama’s personal popularity has fallen to its lowest level, as Nick Coxon explores in his most recent blog, this isn’t enough to explain the collapse in the Democrat vote entirely. Further, this senate seat is no ordinary one; it encapsulates the historical and emotional relationship between Massachusetts and liberalism. Held by Ted Kennedy for nearly half a century before his tragic death in August 2009, and before him by his brother and President, John F Kennedy, it is – or was – a throne of the left movement. In the 2008 presidential election campaign, the state gave the Obama-Biden ticket a 61.8% mandate, and in 2004 John Kerry received similar backing.

 

Significantly too, Massachusetts was the only state in the Union to vote for George McGovern, the Democratic opponent to Nixon, in the 1972 presidential election, much to the nation’s corporate regret following Nixon’s resignation two years later. Indeed after the Watergate affair, a number of the State’s automobiles were brandished with self-affirming bumper stickers reading: “Nixon 49, America 1” and “Don’t blame me, I’m from Massachusetts.”

 

The Brown victory cannot be written off as a fluke. Despite snowfall, turnout was high throughout the state, and 52% is certainly no small majority. We must also acknowledge that the administration, like The Boston Globe, thought Coakley could, and would, win. President Obama and Bill Clinton put their faces next to Martha Coakley posters in visits to the state, a few days before the polls opened in an attempt to squeeze the vote in her favour. But rather than catapulting Coakley to the Senate, they cast doubt on their own political judgements and expectations.

 

 

Despite many commentators’ attempts to simplify the analysis of the Brown win, numerous factors were at play. First Brown was arguably charismatic, warm, attractive (had appeared nude in a Cosmo centre-fold) and relentless in his campaigning; Coakley was off putting to some, an establishment figure, distant and seemingly less energetic on the campaign trail (taking a break from activity following a series of damaging gaffes). Brown’s team seized upon a number his opponents missteps: Coakley claimed in her final television debate performance that there are no terrorists in Afghanistan; her team (criminally) misspelled Massachusetts on one of her attack advertisements; and, perhaps most damning of all in a State which is sensitively dedicated to its team, Coakley referred to a Red Sox basketball hero – Curt Schilling – as a “Yankees fan.” Nothing is insignificant in a race so tight. Soon Coakley gained an image of disconnection from her electors, providing Brown with the perfect moment to cement his handshake with the public. Phrases like “I’m Scott Brown, I’m from Wrentham, and I drive a truck” and “it’s the people’s seat” oozed through the airwaves as fodder for the undecideds and independents, disaffected by Obama and Coakley combined.  

 

 

The result was a game changer. The Senate will be further divided on Obama’s already kangarooing healthcare policy. Massachusetts is a state which is often used as the model for a reformed healthcare system, having only 5% uninsured and established a online insurance marketplace signalled as a blueprint for national application. Thus, their opinion on Obama’s national health strategy counts. Perhaps fractious at the ObRahma agenda which leaves behind a considerable margin of progressive voters, and one which seems far from being concluded, the most liberal state in America turned away from a Democrat who has the chance, and seems to be wasting it.

 

What would those bumper stickers read now? Wake up and smell the Massachusetts?