Tuesday 10th June 2025
Blog Page 2075

The New, still Beautiful South

0

Meeting Dave Hemingway was a slightly bizarre experience. He was a member of one of the most successful and influential pop groups of recent years, yet he can saunter into a pub on Cowley Road and order a drink without anyboday taking notice.

‘I don’t understand people who want to be famous’ he tells me. ‘I was famous for fifteen minutes when ‘A Little Time’ was number one. I hated it.’ It’s easy to believe Hemingway’s dislike of celebrity; fame has never been a big deal to The Beautiful South. They achieved something that few bands ever do; mass sales, critical acclaim, loyal fans and almost total anonymity.
However, two and a half years ago, this musical juggernaut broke down after front man Paul Heaton declared he wanted to pursue a solo career. In January this year, his ex-band members decided they would reform and continue without him.

‘When Paul initially announced that he was splitting the band it wasn’t unexpected. He’d been a bit disillusioned as we weren’t getting as much airplay. He wanted to do something else, and that’s fair enough.’ Hemingway’s final words carry a mild sense of bitterness. Paul Heaton was, after all, the essence of The Beautiful South for many people. A wonderfully inimitable singer and excellent lyricist, he gave the band their distinctive sound. Hemingway is acutely aware of this.

‘Obviously, when the main person in the band decides to leave you think “well, that’s it”. You can’t really go on anymore. It’s like Paul Weller leaving The Jam; it can be seen as a bit sad if the band goes on when the front man leaves. We didn’t want that. We didn’t want to be seen as a tribute act to ourselves.’ I ask Hemingway if they’ve been faced with any ‘all for the moneyaccusations since their reforming. His answer comes with more than a tinge of defensiveness.

‘We’re not doing it for the money because we’re not getting paid much, so that argument goes out of the window. The money we used to get was from selling records which doesn’t apply to The New Beautiful South, because we don’t have a record out yet. But we have got a lot of new songs, with the potential to do an album, and that’s quite exciting for us. It’s not just about retreading the old songs.’

‘We just wanted to be in a band. For two years we did other things, and nothing really came off. Then one day Dave Stead, our drummer, rang and said “do you fancy giving it a go?”‘

Hemingway admits he had many doubts about getting the band back together, and it was a somewhat slow and tentative process. ‘I had to think about whether we could do it justice.  If we could do the songs justice then we’d give it a whirl. Apart from the guitar, the bass and Paul it’s just the same band that we toured with for the last twenty years. We got together, had a few rehearsals to see what it sounded like and decided that we could do it.

 ‘I’d say we’re doing it because Paul wanted to finish the band and, essentially, we didn’t. And it took us a while to realise that we could actually do it without Paul. It took us a long time to realise that.’ I ask Hemingway how The New Beautiful South have been received by fans so far.

We did a gig in London, which I thought was pretty tough. Maybe because it’s London people expect more? Anyway, I thought we coped with that really well. I think the band played well,’ With so many changes, yet so much heritage, it’s hard to know how to view The New Beautiful South. Is this a separate venture, inheriting some of the legacy of The Beautiful South, or is this a continuation? 
‘I see it as new. Well, it’s a bit of an in-between, really. Obviously, we’ve got the old songs and at the same time we’re trying to incorporate some new songs. I don’t see it as a continuation, though, because we’ve lost Dave Rotheray, Sean Welch and Paul. Of the original five members of the band there’s only me and Dave Stead left.

‘I new thing and I’m quite excited about the new songs. We’ve got different songwriters so it’s obviously very different to the old stuff, which was written by Paul and Dave. But its quite fresh. I’ve also got more of a chance to be hands on about it and have more musical imput. Paul was always leader of the band.’

Review: New Moon and a new man

0

Three Stars

I haven’t read the books, the sight of Robert Pattinson does not make me orgasm, and I spent most of Twilight wondering why I had paid to see two hours of painfully bad abstinence porn aimed at hormonal teens. So why, you may ask, did I go to see New Moon? In short, I went to laugh. In the first film, moments designed to pluck at the heartstrings of young girls, such as one classroom scene where Edward’s desire for Bella (Kristin Stewart) hits him so hard that he nearly vomits, had me in hysterics, and I couldn’t resist going back for more. I wasn’t disappointed. For those who don’t buy into the story, New Moon provides plenty of poorly written, badly acted moments to laugh at; my personal favourite is Bella’s repeated claim that when Edward leaves town after an upsetting paper-cut related incident, he leaves a ‘hole in her soul’.

While Edward’s departure is initially devastating for both Bella and Cullen devotees alike, it saves New Moon from the same terrible fate of Twilight, and is fantastic news for people who actually want to watch a film rather than just commit freeze-frames of Cullen looking angsty to memory for post-film fantasising. Though director Chris Weitz still caters to Cullen fans by having him appear to Bella when she is in danger (a frequent occurrence considering her crazy new hobby, ‘thrill seeking’), the emergence of a buffer, older Jacob (Taylor Lautner), will have many young girls questioning their loyalties. More than adequately filling the eye-candy hole that Edward has left, his over-developed torso plays a starring role, and one particular moment when he whips off his t-shirt had the audience screaming with delight. Hot-blooded and full of desire for Bella, his warm energy counters her cold brooding perfectly, and brings the film to life.

The sexual chemistry between Stewart and Lautner is intense, and beats Cullen’s stilted speech and agonizing glowering hands down. There are still some dubious moments – namely Bella’s musing ‘you’re so warm; you’re like your own sun’ – but overall the relationship between the new duo is fun, fully developed, and had me questioning what Bella was ever doing with Edward. 
The whole film is far richer than the first instalment. The vampires look more natural, CGI wolves are introduced, characters in supporting roles are given personalities, Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning cameo as deliciously disturbing members of the Italian Volturi clan, the scenery is much more dramatic, and the indie soundtrack (arguably the only redeeming feature of the first film) is still there.  While some earnest moments still made me laugh, I was gripped, and though I still don’t think it is worth the devotion that so many fans give it, I’m starting to understand what all the fuss is about.

Release: Now Showing

Director: Chris Weitz

Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner

Bunny and the Bull Review

0

Bunny and the Bull: 4 Stars

I am not a fan of the Mighty Boosh. I don’t find its brand of goofy/surreal humour particularly amusing and I am left slightly bemused by the cult of personality that has sprung up around Noel Fielding. The chances of me enjoying Bunny and the Bull were therefore rather slender. Directed by Paul King (who, as the promotional poster informs you, directed the Mighty Boosh) and starring Simon Farnaby, Richard Ayoade, Julian Barratt and Noel Fielding (all alumni of the Mighty Boosh franchise), Bunny and the Bull has been marketed as a feature length film that will entertain the same demographic as its small-screen forebear.

The plot takes place on two levels; the first follows the rigid daily routine of the agoraphobe Stephen Turnbull, or Bull, played by Edward Hogg who after discovering a rat infestation is faced with the daunting prospect of leaving his house in the first time in a year.

This disruption to his ordered life leads Stephen to recall a European road trip taken a year earlier with his wayward friend Bunny (Simon Farnaby) an easy-going, alcoholic, gambling addicted womanizer. Stephen becomes increasingly unstable as memories from their European jaunt begin to physically intrude into his life. The road trip begins as an extension of Stephen’s tragically monotonous life with visits to a range of obscure European museums. However, after meeting Eloise (Veronica Echegui), a beautiful Spanish waitress, in a dire Polish seafood restaurant their trip is transformed into a sexually-charged race to get to Eloise’s Andalusian hometown in time for the annual festival. A love-triangle forms around Elouise and Bunny and Bull’s friendship becomes strained. Just as it seems that their friendship has broken down entirely, Bunny attempts to realise his drunken dreams of being a matador in the dreamscape of rural Spain. Stephen’s latter-day confrontation with Bunny’s ill-fated ambitions leads to a cathartic, if somewhat soppy, moment at the film’s end, as he rids himself of his demons.

There are moments of inspired script writing, such as when Stephen warns that if Bunny dabbles in bull-fighting he will be ‘ripped apart like a cheap velcro wallet’. What makes the film compelling is not the script, the plot or the acting, but the beautiful way the film is pieced together with an attention to detail. From the opening credits onwards the film is constantly visually stimulating. The film is obviously a labour of love with every scene including an element of the whimsical: we chart the progress of the trio on a modern day pirate’s map of europe and their journey through the Swiss Alps takes place in a snow dome in Stephen’s apartment. The injection of these small poetic details make the film a pleasure to watch; even for those who are not die-hard Mighty Boosh fans.

Release: 27 November

Director: Paul King

Starring: Edward Hogg, Simon Farnaby, Veronica Ecghegui, Noel Fielding 

News Roundup

Cherwell News editors Izzy Boggild-Jones and Nicky Henderson discuss religion and the OUSU elections as well as the Christ Church nude calendar controversy.

Magdalen JCR changes name to Gryffindor

0

Cherwell’s news editors talk to the students who proposed the motion for Magdalen JCR to change it’s name to Gryffindor.

Review: A State Affair

0

Robert Sonas’ A State Affair is the only play to have been performed in the House of Lords, and with good reason- it has the power and potential to offer a true glimpse of some peoples’ reality and foster change. It is also an impressive example of verbatim theatre: Soans’ conversations with people in and around Bradford in July 2000 have been directly transcribed into a contemporary and engaging piece of theatre.

A State Affair pieces together the fragmented monologues of what can be considered the underbelly of society: seven individuals living on a Bradford council estate, congregating in the ‘Agape House’ community centre. Although fragmented, there is an underlying unity of experience that the characters have all endured, most heart-wrenchingly of all, the breakdown of their relationships with both family and lovers. It has the power to simultaneously shock the audience with stories of crime, drug addiction and sexual abuse, as well as the ability to evoke an emotional identification with the characters.

The characters all seem to be searching for something, whether this be a relationship or even more crudely, a fix. Later this evolves into the desire to bring about positive change in their own lives and in their local community. Throughout, the cast and crew effectively convey the raw emotion while the lighting lends a surreal atmosphere.

To coincide with the play, the cast and crew have also invited underprivileged students aged 16-18 to Access talks for those interested in going to university, as well as some workshops based on the play- something or which producer Christopher Adams is especially proud, as it has never been done before.

A State Affair is thoroughly recommended, the verbatim aspect is communicated especially well and the characters are superbly acted by the cast. It promises to be dark and grim, yet simultaneously entertaining and uplifting.

five stars

A State Affair is on at the Burton Taylor Tues 1st-Sat 5th December, 19.30,

Paradise Lost?

0

Mention Thailand, and instantly a stream of clichés bubble to the surface of a warm, azure sea of thought. Paradisiacal beaches, full moon parties, trekking, prostitutes, cocktails in buckets, lady-boys, the odd incarcerated tourist, luxury hotels, elephants, mushroom shakes, gap ‘yaaah’ tragedies, tsunamis, world-famous spas, and mopeds jostle together on the farang (foreigner’s) consciousness of a country that remains one of the top tourist destinations in the world, receiving over 14 million international visitors last year. This trend is bound to continue its increase with the advent of budget flights to Asia from airlines such as Air Asia X, who recently launched £99 promotional flights from London to Kuala Lumpur, from where Bangkok, Phuket and a whole raft of other holiday destinations are within a short £20 hop.

Even a few days there can establish that Thailand is a land of extreme contrasts, where a luxury villa can all too easily overlook a slum of immigrant construction workers, and a Holiday Inn can be within a stone’s throw of a multi-storey massage parlour providing happy endings for tourists in straining Hawaiian shirts.

A thorough understanding of the ever-evolving Thai justice system seems a near impossible task. It is a system subject to change on the slightest whim of the specific police officer or judge, the nationality of the perpetrator or victim of a situation, and the government in power.

What has hit the majority of Western minds throughout the past year as airport closures and civil unrest caused delays for hundreds of tourists flying through Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport is actually allied to serious political issues that have affected Thailand for the past decade. A series of coups against democratically elected governments, accompanied by violent protests, has led to the deposition of several Prime Ministers, with military regimes ruling in the interim. In December 2008, British-born Abhisit Vejjajiva, educated at Eton and St John’s, Oxford (with a First in PPE, no less!), became Thailand’s third Prime Minister in the space of three months. His critics say he does not understand the rural majority and emphasise his consistent failure to win power through fair electoral means.

‘A luxury villa can all too easily overlook a slum of immigrant construction workers, and a Holiday Inn can be within a stone’s throw of a multi-storey massage parlour.’

Abhisit gave a speech at his alma mater in St John’s auditorium last year, trying to allay international concerns about the future of Thailand and promising that democracy will move forward, stating that he was “here to reaffirm that Thai democracy is alive and well.” He was overeager to defend his less-than-democratic rise to power by stating that: “Democratically-elected Parliamentarians decided to end the deadlock …and voted openly for my party to form a coalition government. The decision was subsequently vindicated by by-election results a month later, when we won 21 out of 27 seats.” No one threw a shoe at him, but the International Relations Society that invited Abhisit to Oxford came under fire from critics of the Prime Minister for endorsing a speech entitled “Taking on the Challenges of Democracy” from someone with, at best, dubious democratic credentials.

The political situation and rioting has caused massive losses to the country’s lucrative tourist industry and further damaged the national economy, which was facing a bleak year anyway due to the global crisis. The national carrier, Thai Airways International, announced that its bookings had dropped 20 per cent since the state of emergency was declared, while many foreign investors have put their investments in the country on hold. The number of tourists is expected to drop to 11 million from the projected 14 million by the end of 2009.

The constant political uncertainties and changes in government that have dogged the last few years mean that the justice system has been inconsistent and often unfair. Most people can recite an example of a foreigner unjustly imprisoned in a Thai prison, usually on drugs-related charges, even if it is the case of Bridget Jones. The Lonely Planet Guide even offers advice on visiting foreign prisoners in Bangkok jails, a trend encouraged by films like Brokedown Palace starring Kate Beckinsale and Claire Danes.

Examples of miscarriages of justice abound in the media, including some cases of prisoners successfully released. But whilst some prisoners have enjoyed high-profile happy endings, like our beloved Bridget, many innocent Thai and foreign visitors still remain detained, according to the Foreign Prisoners Support Service, which campaigns for the release and transfer of prisoners interned abroad. Prison terms are long and conditions harsh. In Samut Prakan Central Prison, up to 65 prisoners are crammed into cells originally built to house only 25 prisoners each. Numerous prisoners are not convicted, either awaiting trial or their appeal. Many are in prison because they couldn’t afford the bail or the fine, one example of the corrupt nature of the Thai justice system, from which the rich can often escape.

Common cases of drink-driving accidents offer a more visible comparison of the daily injustices affecting everyone in Thailand. On-the-spot fines paid partly to the victim, and mostly to the police, range hugely, with some paying under 5000 baht (£100) and some forced to cough up over 50,000 baht (£1000) or risk a court case. A huge majority of ex-pats and local Thais do continue to drive under the influence. This Songkran (Thai New Year, celebrated April 10-16th) alone, road fatalities rose 1.4% from 368 last year to 373 and 4,332 were reported injured in road incidents, according to the Don’t Drive Drunk foundation. The Centre for Alcohol Studies has highlighted that intoxication is the cause of a staggering 72.7% of road accidents in Thailand, killing 14,000 and injuring 900,000 people annually.

‘If you’re a foreigner, you must be guilty, whatever the circumstances.’

Police efforts to halt this worrying trend are inconsistent. Road checkpoints are sometimes established on major festival days, but those in the know are fully aware of this and alter their routes home accordingly. Even if caught most bank on paying a corrupt police officer an on-the-spot ‘fine’ or bribe. The Chief of the Thai police force, Pol. Gen. Patcharawat Wongsuwan, admitted in a speech marking the New Year that his agency was wanting, and promised improvements, but it is difficult to imagine any genuine change without a radical shift in attitude.

In the traveller’s hotspot of Koh Phangan, site of the full-moon, half-moon, black-moon, Shiva-moon and everything-in-between-moon parties, daily miscarriages of justice are par for the course. Motorbike accidents happen every few seconds, and the bike hire companies make more money by charging uninsured drivers exorbitant damages than they do on actual rental. The maxim: “If you’re a farang, you’re guilty,” is commonly accepted when it comes to road accidents, so there’s no point talking to a policeman even if you could find one. There is a police presence, but it is mainly preoccupied with attempting to prevent drugs entering Haad Rin beach during full-moon parties. Of course, they don’t succeed. Anyone who has been can tell you that as well as the normal weed-on-the-beach formula, there is any amount of cocaine, MDMA and ecstasy for the taking, as well as a questionable assortment of colourful pills in the pockets, shoes and God knows where else of the shiftily smiling vendors. A ‘mushroom’ bar on the cliff overlooking this popular party beach is a permanent fixture, and appears untroubled by police. But, despite this apparent lenience, nothing here is consistent, and if caught in possession of any amount of drugs, a foreigner can face anything from a hefty 50,000 baht fine to a prison sentence.

Drug-dealing is a major industry on the islands, and drug-taking is an all-consuming habit for some locals. Similarly, in the mountainous region up North, where tourists can go on three-day treks to see the hill tribes, a drug culture is still prevalent. Officially, the Thai part of the Golden Triangle (the junction between Thailand, Laos and Burma) has now been brought under the control of the government, and the opium crops that used to be the main source of income in this area have been destroyed. On visiting this area, however, it becomes apparent that opium-smoking is still a way of life in many of the hill-tribes. Opium is sold to visitors for about £1 per pipe as part of the ‘trekking experience’, and I met a few travellers who were there just for that reason.

‘Opium is sold to tourists for about £1 a pipe as part of the trekking experience’

Despite this drug culture throughout the country, few Thais can forget the 2003 massacre of an estimated 2500 drug dealers following orders alleged to be from the government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who had launched a high-profile ‘War on Drugs’. In yet another example of unauthorised and illegal street justice, Thaksin reputedly gave instructions and sent signals that led to the extra-judicial killings of a blacklist of people around the country. The National Human Rights Commission has lodged a petition with the justice ministry concerning some 40 cases that have been thoroughly examined and found to have been killings of innocent persons by police or their agents, and claim that many more people on the blacklist were not guilty.

Only time will tell whether the latest Prime Minister, Oxonian Abhisit, will be able to fulfil his promises to heal the country’s deep political divisions by establishing justice for all. It is certainly true that his country has gone from being one of the most stable to one of the most chaotic in Southeast Asia within the last few years, and it will be a hard job to turn the tables.
The justice system is certainly riddled with inconsistencies, but this should not detract from Thailand’s status as a prime travel destination. It offers so much for the visitor: beautiful islands, blue seas, buzzing metropolises, blazing sunshine, outdoor activities, wild parties and tranquil rural life (all on a student-friendly budget). So don’t be discouraged from planning the trip of a lifetime to the ‘land of smiles’. Just stay on the right side of the law while you’re there.

Arms investment protest

0

Student protest in central Oxford

Is anybody listening, Mr Clegg?

0

Nick Clegg opens his question and answer session in the Wesley Memorial Chapel with disarming modesty: “I’m not a walking encyclopaedia” he insists, “I don’t necessarily have every single fact, every single statistic at the end of my fingertips”. He does a good line in expectation management, a skill that no doubt comes in handy as leader of the Liberal Democrats. It is easy to denigrate Britain’s ‘third party’, so near to power and yet so very far; a party that at once looks back to a distinguished Liberal past and forward to the bright new dawn that always seems to be just around the corner. However, Lib Dem-bashing is a sad sport that doesn’t seem to do British politics any good – at its worst it is a wilful denial of the possibility of progressive change in this country. As such, it is easy to see why Clegg works himself into a lather over the “rotten political system” that perpetuates the Lab-Con seesaw and switches off the average voter from political debate.

It is only a radical who could utter the words “Westminster is a clapped-out 19th century institution that desperately needs to be replaced”. There are few in either of the two main parties who could bring themselves to do so, and neither Cameron nor Brown have shown an appetite to “change the fundamental corruption in the British political system” as the Lib Dem leader says we must. Clegg’s words are tough, but is anyone listening?

On many points I find it – personally – very hard to disagree with Nick Clegg’s diagnosis of our political system: the influence of “big money” on party funding; the unrepresentative nature of our House of Commons; one of the only unelected second chambers in the world. To Clegg, all of these problems add up to voter disengagement. He repeats several times the statistical nugget that “more people didn’t vote in the last election than voted for the winning party”. He is convinced that our politics fails to prove its relevance to people and he’s convinced that Labour and the Conservatives “don’t want to change it”, unlike the “insurgent” Liberal Democrats. The problem is, such radicalism is easily dismissed as the preserve of the irresponsible, those not faced with the gravity of government can afford to offer pie in the sky. Take last week, when Clegg went on a media blitz to peddle the idea that the government scrap the Queen’s Speech and spend the last 70 sitting days of Parliament getting the House in order. Prima facie, it’s a great idea, but it was never going to happen, and would have been a constitutional and political headache for all involved. Instead of stoking a vital debate about the dismal pace of parliamentary reform and Labour’s timidity, he was given a rather condescending hearing by most commentators.

‘There is something seriously sick in the way we run politics.’

This gets to the crux of the Lib Dem problem: there is a time in any party’s political life when they have to decide whether they are happy with insurgency or whether they want to make a viable claim to become the Establishment. Labour had to do it in the early 20th century, and I would argue the Liberal Democrats have to have that conversation today. Early in his leadership, Nick Clegg declared “I want to be Prime Minister”, and this pointed in the right direction for a grown up party. But a Prime Minister, and more importantly a party of government, is judged by the breadth of its vision, by its pragmatism and by its sense of purpose. These are all traits which Clegg has tried to bring out in the Lib Dems, showing that they are hard-headed as well as idealistic. For instance, the Lib Dem conference row over the fate of their policy on tuition fees. Clegg wanted to show the public that he understood politics was about hard choices so he said they could not guarantee fees would be scrapped under a Lib Dem government; but at the same time he wanted to show they cared by reiterating his support for the principle of scrapping tuition fees. This kind of ‘have your cake and eat it’ subtlety is lost in a media spotlight which shines but briefly and intermittently upon the third party. It is hard to act the grown up when you are fighting for attention, and when throwing a tantrum is far more likely to deliver TV cameras and column inches than quiet competence.

Despite these enduring challenges for the Liberal Democrats, it is clear that Clegg thinks they have come a long way and deserve to be taken seriously. “There’s a much steelier quality to the Liberal Democrats today” he tells me, a legacy of the party having participated in devolved government in Cardiff and Edinburgh, run large metropolitan councils like Sheffield, Liverpool and Bristol, and holding the balance of power in the House of Lords. He is right that if you look beyond the petty squabble over who has the keys to Number 10, the Liberal Democrats loom a lot larger. They got 28 per cent of the vote in the local elections earlier this year, considerably more than Labour, and while they may only have one in ten of the seats in the House of Commons, this belies the fact that they got one in four of the votes nationwide at the last general election.

It is difficult not to agree with Clegg that the system which keeps the Liberal Democrats down also smothers genuine difference between the two main parties, who are forced to vie for a narrow section of the electorate in a few marginal seats in order to make a majority government. Clegg sees firm battle-lines drawn between his party and the others, especially on progressive issues.

“We’re the only insurgent party in British politics”

The Lib Dems, he says, offer “a commitment to far, far greater social justice and fairness than either the Conservatives believe in or Labour has been able to deliver” and will back this up with “the most radical tax switch this country’s seen in a generation”. Further, he is proud of their “staunch defence of civil liberties” against an “astonishingly authoritarian” Labour government, and their “staunch defence of our internationalist credentials” against an isolationist Tory party.

One-to-one, Nick Clegg makes an excellent case for his party, neatly drawing distinctions that show the weakness of ideas in the main parties. I ask him what the difference is between Lib Dem and Conservative brands of ‘localism’ and his answer is direct. “One word: money.” He insists that, “as long as the Treasury has its clammy hands on the purse strings of the way we run this country any number of warm-sounding speeches from David Cameron won’t make the faintest bit of difference.”

Nevertheless, if rhetoric from the Lib Dems is ever going to become the change we need, the party will have to start thinking more seriously about how it can get a hand on the reins of power. Then there will be some soul-searching about how to stop power corrupting their ideals, but that is a conversation only a grown up party ever gets round to having.

 

5 Minute Tute: Copenhagen Summit

0

Who will be going to Copenhagen in December?

Delegates from 192 countries will meet to negotiate further development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol. The Convention has near universal global membership, with only Somalia, Iraq, Andorra and the Vatican not belonging. The Kyoto Protocol has more than 180 member countries but, of course, is missing ratification from the United States, a major polluter in terms of carbon emissions. As well as 5,000 country delegates, there will also be another 5,000 or so representatives from civil society, business and research observing the official climate talks and holding their own meetings. This year, an alternative summit alongside the official one will also draw many climate activists who have lost faith in the official negotiations and are discussing alternate solutions to climate change.

What are the stated aims of the Summit?

The Copenhagen meeting is officially called the 15th Conference of Parties to the Convention and will deal with regular issues of clarification and further development of the treaty. This year is special, because the Kyoto Protocol stipulates that Parties need to make a decision on how the Kyoto Protocol will continue once its first commitment period runs out in 2012. The treaty does not come to an end then, but without new targets, it becomes meaningless. In order to get the US on board, countries are also working on an alternative or parallel treaty that the US could sign up to without losing face. Country delegates are therefore under a lot of pressure to set emission reduction targets for industrialised countries whether under the Kyoto Protocol or alternatively, under a new treaty which would include the US.

What are the prospects for an international agreement?

A new treaty, or even a second commitment period under Kyoto, seems very unlikely at this stage. However, countries can make emission reduction commitments under the Convention which are just as legally binding. This means that we may not get a spectacular ‘Copenhagen Protocol’, but we may well have legally binding decisions at the end of the Copenhagen summit that include emission reduction targets.

If no binding agreement emerges, will it be a failure?

It will be a failure in so far that the future of the Kyoto Protocol is left uncertain and, more importantly, that the world’s leaders have let yet another opportunity pass to take strong action on climate change. Having said that, no agreement is better than a weak treaty, because a weak agreement will lock technology into a high emission path which will make it much more difficult for the world to reduce emissions later in order to avert dangerous climate change. At the end of the day, what counts is whether we are reducing emissions drastically, as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), not whether countries have good intentions.

What is Britain taking to the table? Is it enough?

Britain has been relatively progressive in terms of proposing greenhouse gas emission cuts and also in proposing funding to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change. Having said that, the British government often does not follow up on these proposals and is lacking a clear strategy on how to attain its own targets. Unfortunately, we have seen many green policies being announced but never followed through. It is thus important to keep up the public pressure to reduce emissions even after the government announced planned emission reductions.