Telling my friends that I was going to interview Vince Cable I was met with an almost comical scope of reactions. From the politically apathetic “who?” to the wide eyed adoration of the PPE student; “wow, that absolutely amazing, that man’s a genius you know, ask him about… (cue long gabbled list.)”
However, one thing that most people asked me was, “How on earth did you manage to get an interview with him?” They have a point. Shadow chancellor for the liberal democrats, and deputy leader of the party – or acting leader when I spoke to him, as Nick Clegg was on paternity leave. On top of this formal list of credentials he is one of the most respected politicians of our age. His predictions about the recession have been nothing short of prophetic; he made the nation laugh by comparing Brown to Mr Bean; and I am yet to watch an episode of Question Time where any debate about the financial situation hasn’t included a comment along the lines of “maybe we should all just listen to Vince cable”.
So, how did I get the interview? Well, Vince Cable happens to be my local MP, and one of the things you learn as a constituent of Richmond and Twickenham is that Vince Cable doesn’t say no. He is one of those rare, high profile politicians who would bend over backwards for his local constituents and he is vastly popular. In today’s world of expenses scandals and backhanded tactics, where far too often politicians abjectly fail to connect with those who they are representing, what is it about Mr Cable that his sustained his popularity?

“His air when talking about his student experience is endearingly down to earth.”

A brief glance at Vince Cable’s background doesn’t separate him a huge amount from his peers in the House of Commons. A degree in Natural Sciences and Economics from Cambridge and a stint as president of the Cambridge Union seem enough to paint him with the ‘just another elitist politician’ brush. Yet his air when talking about his student experience is endearingly down to earth. When I ask why he chose Cambridge, he smiles, “Well, it was actually one of the few places that would have me. I applied to a number of the Oxford colleges and was rejected by them all, so I ended up at Fitzwilliam College Cambridge.” (He certainly knows how to charm an Oxford student).
Similarly, when quizzed about the Union he doesn’t mention any famous speakers, but instead focuses on his contemporaries. “I was lucky enough to be with a very competent group of individuals… One of the biggest influences on me was a friend who didn’t go on to become anyone famous. He became a humorist and taught me a great deal about the importance of humour in politics.”
 It was not until later in his life that Cable was elected into a political office. “I spent quite a while trying to get in. People don’t generally know that I failed a few times first.” He had however been politically active from early on, both at university and after. From 1971-74, he was a labour councillor in Glasgow: “There was a lot of poverty and important issues there at the time.” His enthusiasm for active involvement has not only characterised his career but comes through in everything he talks about.
He has a huge amount of praise for student activism and student politics in general. “I was lucky enough to be a student at a time when student politics was very active – there were some particularly emotive issues, such as the apartheid, in those days. When both of my children were at university they said that most people were quite politically apathetic. It’s good to hear that students are becoming interested again.” And does parliament take notice of student politics? “Of course, students are the future of politics”.
It has been in the last five or so years that Cable has become more of a household name. In the past twelve months especially, the depth of his economic understanding has thrust him into the political limelight.

“Gordon Brown lost his respect a long time ago”

He is refreshingly ‘matter of fact’ about the newfound media interest. “It’d not that bad really, I don’t object too much. I suppose I’ve had a more interesting private life as far as the media is concerned than other politicians.” He is talking about the loss of his first wife to breast cancer in 2001. He has since remarried but still wears the wedding rings from both of his marriages. There’s something endearing about him when he discusses it; when I ask him what issues he’s dealt with which he has been the most passionate about, the first thing he mentions is his push for more regular cancer screening. 
Whereas all around him politicians have such volatile relationships with the media, Cable’s approach to the attention was straight forward.  “You ask for it when you sign up to the job. A politician who complains about the media is like a fisherman who complains about the sea”.
Aside from his honesty with the press and his sophisticated economic understanding, Cable is known for his fierce loyalty to the Liberal Democrats. When I broach the subject of rumours that Brown has been asking him to leave the Lib Dems and work as an economic advisor in the current recession, he closes up, leans back in his chair and crosses his arms, “I have made it quite clear that I’m not interested in any proposal of that kind”. Do partisan loyalties ever hinder the course of best government? “British politics does have a tendency to be very tribal for sure, but the party in government can’t just pick off individuals from other places as they please.” Talking about the Brown administration he seems weary, describing it as “exhausted”.
“They quite simply have no idea how to get themselves out of this terrible mess. The thing is that it’s not as if the Conservatives would do any better.”
“Gordon Brown lost his respect a long time ago. There’s just no direction”
Vince Cable is likeable in a very surprising way. He couldn’t contrast more startlingly with slimy spin-masters like Blair or Cameron: there was none of the rhetoric, none of the fake smiles; he is in fact quite serious, to the point, and focused. There are moments when he really seems to relax, particularly when I ask about non political subjects; the fact that he is an accomplished ballroom dancer, for example (“Accomplished? Those are your words not mine”), and when I quiz him about his chosen ‘luxury item’ during his feature on Radio Four’s dessert island disks. “I like speed” he answers with that wry smile of his. “I said if it was a very large island equipped with petrol pumps I’d have an Aston Martin- But I’ve been somewhat criticised by my more environmentally conscious colleagues”.
He is, all in all, an extremely genuine man, and this seems to me the most obvious explanation as to why he has maintained his popularity in a climate where few others have. Being good at your job is no longer enough for politicians in today’s world. People want honesty, focus and engagement.

Vince Cable’s book ‘Storm: The World Economic Crisis and What it Means’ is available from Atlantic Books for £14.99

He will be speaking to the International Relations Society in Oxford on Thursday 30th April, 7.45 in the Oriel Lecture room

Is the goal of non-proliferation preventing the spread of weapons or destoying thsoe already in existence?

The ultimate goal of nuclear nonproliferation is to prevent additional states from acquiring nuclear weapons. The key number that must be avoided here is one. Nuclear nonproliferation efforts must prevent even a single nuclear weapon from being acquired by a nonweapons state. To achieve this, nuclear nonproliferation efforts try to prevent states from acquiring any nuclear materials, technology or equipment that could help them acquire nuclear arms without setting off alarm bells well before any bomb is actually built. Nuclear arms control, on the other hand, is about freezing or reducing the number of existing nuclear weapons that states possess. The key number here is some number above zero. Finally, nuclear disarmament is about eliminating all nuclear weapons holdings. The key number here is zero.

What steps are taken to achieve this aim?

The key steps include exports controls and interdiction of any nuclear materials, equipment or technology that is designed specifically to make nuclear weapons, such as nuclear weapons design information and nuclear weapons grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium. They also include international nuclear inspections designed to prevent diversion of civilian nuclear equipment and materials to make bombs. The latter are only effective if they can detect a diversion early enough to allow outside authorities sufficient time to intervene to prevent nuclear bombs from being built.

What incentive is there for countries to disarm while the US retains its weapons?

Despite the US and other countries possessing nuclear weapons, there are still reasons to avoid them. A key incentive for non-weapon states not to acquire nuclear weapons is to reassure their neighbors that they don’t have to acquire nuclear weapons either, avoiding a frightening, expensive nuclear arms competition.

Would adding Israel, India and Pakistan to the list of declared nuclear states further non-proliferation?

Adding Israel to the list definitely would complicate matters since it would probably goad its neighbors Egypt and Syria into openly acquiring nuclear weapons as well. It would be far better for Israel to stop producing nuclear fissile material for bombs and eventually to disarm quietly on the basis of nuclear restraints being placed on its neighbors as well. As for Pakistan and India, they are already declared nuclear weapons states, but not considered nuclear weapon states under the NPT. Doing so, however, would reward them for acquiring nuclear weapons by giving them access to controlled civilian nuclear goods, thus acting as an incentive for nother non-weapon states to follow. This is why the US-Indian nuclear cooperative agreement was so controversial. Strictly speaking, this deal is not supposed to help India acquire any more nuclear weapons per year than it was making prior to the deal. If it does (and it might since the deal allows India to import more nuclear fuel for its power reactors that could free up more domestic Indian ore for making nuclear bombs), it would be a violation of Article I of the NPT, which prohibits nuclear weapons states (e.g., Russia, the U.S. and France) from doing anything to help any nation that did not have nuclear weapons prior to 1967 to acquire or make more nuclear weapons).

Are the recent proposals by President Obama regarding a fuel bank and talks with Russia likely to have much of an impact on non-proliferation?

No. The proposed nuclear fuel bank would only provide a diplomatic talking point for those who fear that their supply of fuel for nuclear power reactors may be cut off. This, however, has only been done in the rare instance, e.g. Iran and India, when the country in question violated clear nuclear rules and was toying with acquiring nuclear weapons.
As for Mr. Obama’s other proposals to ratify a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), these too are mostly symbolic since the US, France, the UK, Russia and China are not generally suspected of still producing fissile for bombs or of nuclear testing. Neither of these treatoies are ever likely to be brought into force since countries like Pakistan, India, and Egypt will refuse to ratify them until there is general nuclear disarmament

Sophie Duker
French & English
Wadham College

What do you call a black man who flies a plane?
A pilot, you racist. So what do you call a black girl who goes to Oxford University? Statistically unlikely.
In 1969, Nina Simone sang Weldon Irvine’s immortal lyrics:
“In the whole world you know/There are a billion boys and girls/Who are young, gifted and black/And that’s a fact!”
These lines are inspiring. But they don’t change a fact I recently discovered; namely, that out of over 3,000 undergraduates admitted to Oxford in 2008, only I and 23 others identified as black African. Admittedly, there could be a few who chose not to identify themselves, but I doubt anyone bothered. You see, the thing about being black African, or Caribbean, for that matter, is that you’re fairly easy to identify, whether or not you ticked a box on your personal statement. You can’t hide your ethnicity by buying a polo shirt from ‘Fabulously British’ Jack Wills or by adopting the word ‘yah’ into your vocabulary-if you’re the only black girl in your lecture, you will stick out like a little cocoa-coloured anomaly. Interestingly, it seems to be a slightly different experience for black boys than for black girls. It’s largely due to The Obama Effect, mixed up with reminisces of Save the Last Dance. If you are a black boy who isn’t a rude-i.e. no ear piercings, good diction, good grades, a belt and no sharp pointy bits of metal about your person – you are automatically a young Barack. You are the future, you are breaking down barriers, you are setting an example. And everybody fancies you. None of this, by the way, is intended as a dig at either Iwu or Chigbo (current and elect presidents of Oxford & Cambridge student unions, respectively) who are both so accomplished and good-looking that comparisons to the American president are wholly unsurprising. One might think that at Oxford, an institution which prides itself on being a meritocracy, ethnic minority students would naturally not make their background an issue. Au contraire. As Yosola Olorunshola, a fresher studying French and History at Jesus College points out, “Quite a few of the other black students I’ve met from Oxbridge seem to embrace being ‘the only black in the village’-it’s a way of inverting your insecurity about it.” She continues, “If you’re going to stand out, it might as well be on your own terms.” Banter, which has alternately been translated to mean ‘ignorant bigotry’ and ‘witticisms between friends’, is a touchy subject, but something I believe it’s possible to defend. Just for clarification: a rugby team ‘blacking up’ is not banter. I doubt anyone would dare to do it in Acton-for fear of getting lynched-and it is definitely both alienating and offensive. Being able to have a conversation with someone who’s relaxed enough to joke around with you and isn’t afraid to be politically incorrect is liberating. What’s not is being around people made uncomfortable when you play the race card. Humour is one of the gentlest and nicest ways of educating people about their prejudices. It does much more to challenge people’s assumptions than just about anything else. Blending into the background, while obviously a literal impossibility, can be achieved to a certain extent though sheer bloody-mindedness-a refusal to acknowledge the colour of your skin, whether positively or negatively. But forsaking such a blatant part of your identity leads to identity crisis, whether or not you feel, or want to feel, a part of a greater black community. Some might think it’s unhealthy to fixate on difference. But it’s equally unhealthy to live in denial. Out of Simone’s ‘billion boys and girls’, only about 30 actually made it here, to one of the most respected academic institutions in the world. I see more black faces in one place behind the Sainsbury’s counter on the alcohol run than I ever have in my JCR. So, what can we do? (By ‘we’, I here mean everyone in the university, regardless of pigmentation.) Well, what anyone would hope we were going to do anyway. Laugh at each other, learn about each other, lovingly trade insults. Have a sense of humour without being insensitive. I don’t want to be constantly reminded about being black. But neither do I ever want to or will I ever be able to forget it. Africa bops are a great idea… but if someone can’t muster up enough imagination to come as something other than a blacked-up savage straight out of Heart of Darkness, it just shows they haven’t had enough exposure to the thirty or so black individuals who joined Oxford’s ranks of young and gifted last year.

Ravi Thambapillai
Founding President
International Relations Soc

You can have your British Prime Minister in any colour- as long as its not black. Or indeed any colour other than white. Yet, in America, that seems to no longer be the case. With the election of the first (half) black leader of the United States of America, the inevitable question has to be raised; why hasn’t it happened here?
Trevor Phillips has famously said that institutional racism in key governmental organisations, including, for example, the Labour Party, would prevent a young, intelligent but non-white candidate from rising to the top. Ironically, there are systemic constraints on ethnic minorities, but they are not institutional in the way that Trevor Phillips thinks. When we ask whether a black person could become Prime minister, we are really asking can an outsider become Prime Minister. Many educated people feel there is no important race relations question to be addressed here in Britain; saying its just a proxy for class. This is false and missing the point. Many affluent ethnic minorities put ethnic under-representation down to a question of class, that really the colour of your skin isn’t the main factor, but your socio-economic background. And it just so happens that, through no fault of the current British system or population, many more minority citizens hail from a lower socio economic background than their white counterparts. No doubt this plays a part, but it is not the only factor. In poorer regions, but particularly in the north in cities like Bradford, intra-class ethnic tension, segregation and conflict reaches levels that urbane Oxonian-Londoners could not begin to understand. However, even the wealthy southern institutions have worryingly white compositions.
Oxbridge is disappointingly un-colourful. There is a real problem regarding the ethnic composition of applications that come in the Oxbridge’s direction.
A discerning eye would see that the most likely explanation is that not enough ethnic students are applying. But while state school application ratios are now (at last) rising (too slowly), a recent Times article states applications from Indian and Chinese UK students are falling.
Yet the even more interesting issue is how insidious ‘tribalism’ is in our society. Even in the enlightened, educated land of Oxford, the Chinese students have a disproportionate number of Chinese friends, and the ‘brown’ students have a disproportionate number of brown friends. The ‘brown’ vote is even considered a demographic bloc in Union politicking. It shapes unconscious networks in Oxford, and outside in poorer regions it segregates people and breeds ignorance and contempt. It also shapes careers. Is it a total coincidence that the highest concentration of black faces in central Oxford are behind the counters on Cornmarket’s fast-food restaurants?
Even the hugely talented have race based influences on their careers. For integrated families, who have experienced success in a variety of different fields, medicine is one of the most respectable and impressive career choices. For many isolated Indian ones, it is the sole or preeminent pinnacle of achievement.
Reading Obama’s autobiography, ‘Dreams from my father’ provides an interesting contrast to UK ethnic minorities. The route that Obama finally takes to discover his Americanism is one that simply isn’t open to the British. Obama finds his patriotism and American identity by feeling the resonance of quintessentially American rhetoric about ‘the land of opportunity’ and ‘the audacity of hope’, looking in himself and finding his mindset to be, powerfully American.
No such mindset exists in the British people. There are few tangibly British qualities that ethnic groups can attach themselves to and really identify with. What does exist holds much less potency than its American version. Instead, if those who feel dislocated look inward in the search for their own national identity, they often find shared features with those of their skin colour, like the experience of battling a distinctly exotic cultural upbringing in the (generally unsuccessful) attempt to be part of the ‘cool group’ at school. These problems beset Obama as much as any UK Asian – but for him the solution was to be found in the distinct American identity. That solution simply does not exist on this side of the pond, leaving many British Asians to identify themselves, deep down, as Asian British.
It’s a popular opinion that racism in the UK is a thing of the past. It’s a popular opinion that is wrong. While overt and intentional discrimination is now fairly rare, a subtle insidious racism is an ever-present part of society. How many Asians have been pressured, albeit subtly, by members of their extended family, to prefer an Asian girlfriend or boyfriend? How many also, whilst dating white partners, have experienced monumental cultural ignorance or even some badly concealed discomfort at the hands of the families who shudder that a black ram might be tupping their white ewe?
Such notions are at once comical and tragic. Attitudes are changing, as a more intermingled population matures. Those like Lammy and Iwu will, without doubt, go on to be very successful black politicians. But they will still be very successful black politicians.