Edward Higginbottom, leader of New College’s Choir, has been appointed as Britain’s first ever Choral Professor.
It caps a triumphant week for Oxford’s new professor, who has just won a prestigious Gramophone award – often referred to as “the Oscars for classical music”.
Higginbottom, 61, became New College’s Director of Music at the age of 29. Under his leadership, the college Choir received the Gramophone award for its recording of a piece by the 16th century composer Nicholas Ludford.
Landlords of a student house, Mr and Mrs Ahmed, have been asked to shell out over £15,000 in fines for breaching housing regulations.
Oxford Magistrates found them guilty of five separate charges at a court hearing on 26th September. Windows of the house, in Leys Place off Cowley Road, were excessively rotted and the smoke alarms defunct, according to council reports. The couple had failed to repair a broken window and left it boarded up.
They were also unable to produce gas and electric safety certificates, and had not responded to repeated complaints from students about conditions.
Morning. New year, new blog. A simple premise, this: a quick round up of the six most pertinent singles officially released today, today being Monday. I shall strive to keep prejudice and subjectivity to a moderate high, whilst genuinely attempting to give a decent impression of the song in question. Constructive comments, please: ‘less shit’, ‘shorter’, ‘less wrong’, that sort of thing. So; to the breach.
Sugababes: Girls ***
This should be by far the best single released this week. Its cocksure swagger and good-time keyboard effects underpin a hideously artificial but undeniably sassy vocal. Can a song preen like a complacent peacock at the same time as burrowing into your brain like some tenacious weasel? Yet despite all this, frankly it’s nowhere near as good as it makes out, not that that’s ever hindered chart success. The official remixes all play pretty safe, respecting the integrity of the original structure a little too much and contenting themselves with adding a layer of hand claps or squirty synths. But when someone gets this right, club playlists are going to go into a new Groundhog Day…
Sharleen Spiteri: Stop, I Don’t Love You Anymore ****
This is in fact by far the best single released this week. The work of the same Scottish chanteuse who gave the world ‘Halo’ and ‘Black Eyed Boy’, thus putting herself one martyrdom short of saint-hood, this Motown/Spaghetti Western hybrid is brimming with all the infectious joy and pop hookery that should be bubbling through Sugababes’ latest. As it is, this ultra-retro effort from her out of Texas combines ‘50s guitar, a vocal of Diana Ross gorgeousness, some discreet Hawaiian percussion and truly exultant trumpets to bring light into your young lives.
Foals: Olympic Airways ***
In which Oxford’s most overrated homeboys peddle yet more math-rock with all the emotional connection of the Dewy Decimal System and as little funk as you’d expect from some skinny white kids playing guitars. Except that, thanks to some delicious harmonics early on and lullaby-soft dual vocals, this one’s actually quite good. It lacks the brilliance of Foals’ standout track, ‘Red Socks Pugie’, but ambles along pleasantly enough compared to most of the album it comes from. Wittering away about building aviaries and pronouncing ‘disappear’ with four syllables, there’s just about enough eccentricity to keep the brain engaged and the foot tapping.
Tilly And The Wall: Beat Control **
Dear God this song is infectious. Like SARS. A sort of aerobics workout for the teen dipping their big toe in the waters of ‘80s indie, this song means absolutely nothing and has zero artistic value. Even the bizarre use of solemn church-organ to underline the infantile chord progression fails to lend it chutzpah. What it does have is one hell of a melody atop an inoffensive groove that, if you’ve previously sold your soul to any form of diabolical entity, feel free to go and inanely grin to.
Kaiser Chiefs: Never Miss A Beat *
I begin to sense a theme: the cynical use of the word ‘beat’ to lend cutting-edge significance to a song that is in fact soul-searingly irrelevant. Worse still, the well-intentioned message, some kind of indictment of the poverty of ambition and intellect prevalent in today’s youth culture, may be pitched at too subtle a level of irony for the Chiefs’ fans. They themselves are clearly irony gods, as they manage to disapprove of wilful, destructive, narrow-minded ignorance with their lyrics, whilst exhibiting precisely that on a musical level. If you’ve ever heard a Kaiser Chiefs song before, then you know what this sounds like. My commiserations.
Jack White & Alicia Keys: Another Way To Die **
Hopefully the Bond film this is written for will take rather less time to get going. Once ‘Another Way To Die’ stops sashaying around in the background and gets in your face, it certainly demands attention. But, like a shy belly-dancer who eventually gives it their all, this could do with a few pointers on taste and style. Based very loosely around a suitably schizoid Jack White riff, this is less a coherent song, more a mad welter of bar-room piano, skulking strings, and apocalyptic brass. It has no discernible tune. The two protagonists content themselves with arguing heatedly but vaguely about furniture and receipts somewhere in the background. It sounds like another tired attempt at capturing the ideal ‘Bond Theme’ sound. One happy day they’ll all just give up and use Morrissey’s ‘Irish Blood, English Heart’, which is what Bond themes should always sound like.
Top Of The Ox: local tune of the week.
Every week I intend to support Oxford artists by, ah, giving their music away for free. I’ve been plugging Stornoway for years so I may as well get them out of the way first. Zorbing is simply the greatest take on the three-chord song I’ve ever heard and regularly gets me weepy around the third verse. First revel in its pop simplicity, driving jazz piano and name-checking of the Cowley Road, then check out the band live at the Jericho Tavern, supporting Sam Isaac, this Wednesday. If you can’t make that, they’re playing the Academy on November 8.
Send your suggestions for tune of the week to oskar.coxjensen[at]chch.ox.ac.uk.
Sadly an early start tomorrow means I won’t be live-blogging this evening but here are some pre-game thoughts.
For all the media hysteria over the Kate Couric interview, Democrats, not
Republicans, should be most worried about tonight’s Vice-Presidential debate.
The problem, from the Democrats perspective, is that expectations of Palin are too low. Ridiculously low. Impossibly low. There is almost no way that
Palin can fail to beat expectations, and even if she does it’s unlikely to
deliver a knock-out punch. It will simply confirm the current perception of
Palin which will leave McCain 5-6 points down, ie. where he is right now.
Traditionally veep debates are worth 2 points in the polls at the most (according to Fivethirtyeight’s analysis), but because expectations of Palin’s performance are so low a good night for her could actually be worth more than that.
There are other reasons Democrats should be nervous ahead of the debate. For one thing, there’s a reason Joe Biden has a reputation for gaffes. Just look at this McCain ad for some examples. Any comment by Biden that sounds in any way patronising or misogynistic will be devoured with glee by Republicans afterwards. He’s also got to avoid saying anything stupid, full stop. Oh, and maybe best to avoid asking the moderator to stand after this.
There’s another factor that means this debate is tilted heavily against any kind of Biden boost. The Couric interview was so embarassing that she’s built up a fair bit of sympathy amongst some voters. Any perceived media sexism – in the GOP world read any media criticism/less than fawning praise – against Palin will further aid the Republican ticket.
In short: what’s the best the Democrats can hope for tonight? Voters being left with the perception Biden is an experienced, knowlegable statesman and Palin is dangerously, comically, tragically inexperienced perhaps? Trouble is, that’s already the popular view. For Palin the only way is up, and after a week spent furiously cramming, and a format designed to reduce the opportunities for candidates to be able to debate amongst each other,it will be pretty hard for her not to outperform these “ankle-high” expectations, and ‘win’ the debate.
The Guardian media awards nominees are out today and Aldate is pleased to note this website is in the running; clearly the judges have been appreciating the Saint’s ramblings. Fans of Live!, one of the other nominees, better hope the judges don’t read this comment from the Live! editor before they make their final choice: “Shame we’re up against Cherwell – an excellent website, £125k per year turnover and what seems like hundreds of people…” £125k? If only.
Cherwell also got a nod for publication design and pat on the back to ex-OxStu ed Hannah Kuchler – aka. the ginger haired one – who’s up for student reporter of the year.
In the biggest shocker The Oxymoron has been nominated for magazine of the year, despite not actually being a magazine. They beat off competition from (hushed tones) Isis/the Oxford Forum/Bang/every other random Oxford student mag.
Even though Pickles and co. eschewed Aldate’s suggestion to just print on photocopies and staple it Aldate sends our congratulations. They might even be able to print another issue now, word is there have been some quote “funding issues”- namely they have no money. Rumours that the team will be turning up to the ceremony dressed as rape victims are currently unconfirmed.
Cherwell has been contacted by the powers that be at the British Broadcasting Coporation. They asked us to put out this special message about a TV programme they’ll be filming in Oxford this week…
The Beeb have gone and organized an ad hoc debate at the Union. It’s part of a new series they’re making on the theme of ‘confidence’ among professionals. Thing is, they need opinionated student types to fill the debating chamber and put challenging questions to five nurses trying to improve their public speaking skills.
The BBC said, “We are asking them to stand up and explain the confidence issues they have and why they are part of the programme. the audience will then ask them questions and perhaps challenge them depending on what they say.”
And if you attend, you’ll likely appear in the show – especially if you ask a question, we’re told.
Sound like fun? All you have to do to take part is get yourself down to the Union building at 9.45am sharp on Wednesday 1st October. The debate will start at 10am and last about an hour.
Go along for a taste of small screen stardom.
4.46am | Tomorrow’s headline – Given how the instant polling seems to be going, will the media be ready to crown Obama the winner tomorrow morning? More interesting, I think, is the question of whether this debate will matter in a few days time. The economic crisis is bound to dominate news cycles in the meantime and a foreign policy debate with no standout winner, and no major ‘moments,’ will easily fade into the background. Or does this just mean that the economy half of the debate (which favoured Obama, reviews seem to agree) will get more press?
As i wrote earlier this evening, pre-debate expectations were that McCain needed to dominate, he needed a ‘gamechanger.’ Tonight he didn’t get that, and that means one of the few remaining opportunities for this has slipped him by. We’ll see how this is spun in the next few days, but I have a feeling Democrats will be happier with tonight’s outcome.
4.28am | Telephone polls – Obama won in CNN’s instant telehone poll for all three questions (who did better, who do you trust on Iraq, who do you trust on the economy). The numbers were c.51-38/52-47/51-38 respectively.
As the pundits are pointing out, this will help the spin for Obama significantly as many people make up their opinion from the reaction of others. And another point – will foreign policy be raised again in the next month?
4.13am | Kissinger – Dr Kissinger has issued a statement saying his view is compatible with McCain’s and that he advocates talks at the Secretary of State, not the Presidential, level. Looks like Obama is going to lost the post-debate spin on this one.
4.09am | Results – Fivethirtyeight reports: “Independents in the MediaCurves focus group gave the debate to Obama 61-39. They also think he won every individual segment. Republicans gave the debate to McCain 90-10, Democrats to Obama 93-7.”
4.03am | Veep debate – Biden is already playing expectations on CNN, “I have great respect for the debating skills of Governor Palin.” It’s next Thursday and, based on the 3 interviews she’s done so far, it might be car-crash tv.
3.59am | A thought – Why is McCain pushing judgement, experience, and ‘ready on day one’ so hard when this exact argument failed for Hillary Clinton in the primaries? Has he abandoned his ‘the right change’ slogan?
3.49am | The pundits weigh in – Succinct take from a CNN pundit: McCain wanted to paint Obama as a risky choice, Obama wanted to paint McCain as the past vs. the future. There weren’t any moments Obama really came across as risky, but there were moments McCain seemed old (Eisenhower reference anyone?).
There’s a lot of talk about Obama’s “John is right” lines. Bipartisan or foolish?
3.39am | A draw? – It started off quite slowly. McCain got going in the second half though, reeling off facts and foreign policy names in an authoritative fashion. Obama seemed more practised. He was crisp, concise and knowledgeable. He generally brought points back to key themes and didn’t give in on any issue.
Image-wise McCain attempted repeatedly to emphasise Obama’s youth and relative inexperience, saying the Democrat didn’t understand a number of issues, and didn’t have the experience to lead. Obama, I thought, came across as presidential. He was very poised and directly addressed McCain in a way that his opponent didn’t do.
Of course, McCain had more at stake so will Democrats be happier with a draw?
A quick note – McCain already has a YouTube ad with clips of Obama saying “I agree with John” from tonight’s debate. Quick work at McCain HQ there.
3.23am | Fear mongering – A bizarre question in some respects: what is the likelihood of another 9/11 attack? McCain mentions that he worked across the aisle and called for a 9/11 commission even though the administration opposed it. He mentions never using torture again, although doesn’t take the opportunity to mention his POW past.
Obama talks about the risk of a suitcase bomb and why legislation addressing nuclear proliferation is so important. He wants to – and he’s said this line a lot on the stump – “restore our moral standing in the world.”
McCain brings it all back around to Iraq, Obama “still doesn’t get it.” Defeat in Iraq would bring about disaster in the region and empower al-Qaeda. He’s seeking to make this the issue voters judge them on.
Obama points out that Bush and McCain have spent 8 years solely focused on Iraq and in the meantime al-Qaeda has experienced a resurgence, Bin Laden hasn’t been caught, and the US is borrowing billions from China. Obama says: “no-one is talking about losing this law; the next President has to have a broader vision.”
McCain counters with his experience and judgement and says Obama simply isn’t ready. Now, here’s Obama’s closing arguement. He returns to his biography, specifically his Kenyan origins. And finally, last lines: McCain mentions his return from prison and his work on bipartisan veterans legislation “I know how to heal the wounds of war, I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.” Obama doesn’t get another line. That’s all folks.
3.15am | Russia – Obama: “a resurgent Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region.” But he notes “we can’t have a return to a Cold War mentality.” He uses the opportunity to bring up his bipartisan nuclear proliferation legislation.
McCain: “again a bit of naivety there.” He says Obama doesn’t realise that Russia committed serious aggression. A lot of name dropping follows of the other countries and leaders in the regions. Obama says they largely agree but points out he called the Georgian invasion illegal and unacceptable. We move on to nuclear waste and energy
3.03am | Iran – McCain: “If Iran acquires nuclear weapons it is an existential threat to Israel and the other countries in the region.” He calls for co-operation with the other democracies of the world. Obama also wouldn’t tolerate a nuclear Iran but points out that the Iraq war is responsible for Iran’s new role in the region. Senator Obama emphasises his willingness to talk with rogue leaders. McCain stumbles on the word ‘Ahmadinejad’ and aggressively tries to repronounce it correctly before catching himself. To prove he can do names he then reels off a list of Soviet names from the Reagan-era.
Obama points out that one of McCain’s advisers – Nobel prize-winning Dr Henry Kissinger – agrees that the US should sit down with Iran without preconditions. He points out the nuclear advances made by North Korea when the US disengaged. He’s clearly well-prepped, bringing up McCain’s ‘I won’t sit down with Spain’ gaffe. McCain counters by bring up Obama’s one-day phony presidential seal, saying: “I don’t even have my own seal yet.” Some more forceful language too, Obama’s plan here “isn’t just naive, it’s dangerous.” Is Obama trying to goad an angry reaction from McCain’s notorious temper here? It all gets a bit heated but McCain comes off better.
2.50am | Afghanistan – Do we need a surge there? Obama says yes to more troops, as soon as possible. He points out that Iraq has four times as many troops. He calls it an “(emphasised) strategic mistake” – subtext: yes I do know the difference between tactics and strategy. McCain talks about Pakistan, saying he wouldn’t threaten the country. He talks about his visits to Afghanistan and the need for specific tactics. Oh, and he mentions Petraeus for maybe the fiftieth time.
More harsh blows too – Obama mentions some past McCain gaffes, including that “bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran” song. McCain counters with a vote from 1983 against sending marines to Lebanon, his support for the first Gulf War, the operation in Bosnia, the operation in Kosovo.” It’s a strong line, playing up his experience and leadership credentials, and it’s delivered with real gravitas. Moment numer two perhaps?
A bit of a stumble from Obama who counters a McCain story about the bracelet of an Iraq war casualty by saying he has a bracelet of his own. Unfortunately, he then has to very obviously look down at his notes for the name.
2.37am | Lessons of Iraq – McCain is straight in there with the surge. He says he realised this was required in 2003, praised Petraeus, and says “our troops will come home in victory.” Unsurprisingly, CNN’s ‘audience reaction’ shows the biggest divide so far between Republicans and Democrats with Independents right in the middle.
Predictably, Obama turns this into a question of whether the war was a good idea in the first place. He says he stood up on this 6 years ago and thought it would be a distraction from Afghanistan. This response is polling better across the board on the CNN ticker and is actually less polarising between party identity. Encouragingly for Democrats, the Independents are really liking this response.
McCain says the next President won’t have to decide whether or not to go into Iraq and pushes Obama’s opposition to the surge. Obama counters with a namecheck for Joe Biden and some tough, forceful language: “John, you like to pretend that the war began in 2007. You said it would be easy – you were wrong. You said we’d be greated as liberators – you were wrong.” That could well be our first big moment here.
This is getting feisty, McCain says Obama doesn’t know the difference between a strategy and a tactic but he’ll tell him. Then he breaks out a very patriotic anecdote – he says he was in Iraq on July 4 at a re-enlistment ceremony and the soldiers asked for them to “not lose.”
2.25am | Sacrifices – What’s the cost of the financial crisis to your plans in office? Unsurprisingly, neither wants to give specifics that will be cut but are happy to list what they will do.
McCain mentions a spending freeze, Obama calls it using a hatchet when you need a scalpel. He calls for savings in Iraq, McCain bring up nuclear power and climate change. McCain says he is proud of the work he has done on climate change “with Senator Clinton.”
McCain has now twice said “he has not been elected Miss Congeniality in the Senate” seeking to distance himself from Bush. He calls himself a maverick and says his partner is one too (though he doesn’t actually mention Palin’s name).
2.11am | Leadership – Lehrer asks for the differences between how the two candidates would lead America out of the crisis. McCain blames earmarking, saying he’s got a pen – though he notes, and he actually says “this pen is kinda old” – and will veto any legislation with pork. McCain says Obama has got nearly $1m a day since he’s been in the Senate ($18m dollars).
McCain keeps mentioning the corrupting power of earmarks which maybe isn’t the best plan when Ted Stevens, the Senator from Alaska is a prime example, and has close ties with Governor Palin.
That said, McCain is pushing hard here and Obama hasn’t come out with a great response yet. Obama says McCain wants to tax health benefits and he says businesses don’t suffer from high rates of business tax because of loopholes.
2.02am | Financial recovery plan – There’s no messing around, question one asks the candidates to define their position on the financial recovery plan. Obama’s first line (after thanking Ole Miss for the debate) is that he “can’t think of a more important time” to be holding a debate – a clear dig at McCain’s flight to Washington.
Obama essentially repeats the 5 points (oversight, possibility of taxpayers making money etc.) that he appended to the joint statement released a couple of days ago. And there’s your first drink: Obama links the crisis to the failings of 8 years of Bush, supported by McCain.
McCain seeks to take credit for the bipartisan approach to attempts to sort out the financial crisis. Both candidates have name-checked “main street” and “Wall Street.” Lehrer asks outright for the candidates positions but Obama notes that they haven’t seen the language yet. He instead talks about how this crisis came about; no prizes for guessing who he blames.
McCain says he also warned about this crisis but turns to an anecdote about Eisenhower before Normandy to call for accountability, standing by his call for the SEC Chariman to be fired. McCain does say he will vote for the package.
There’s a pretty sober tone through most of the first 9-minute segment as the moderator attempts to get the two candidates to talk directly to each other.
2.00am | Seconds away – CNN has the feed from the stage where the set seems to be the exact same one they used in the West Wing live episode.
1.30am | Intro – Right, the debate itself gets underway at 2am (it’s live on BBC News and CNN.com for those wanting the full audiovisual experience) but it the meantime there’s just about time for a preshow huddle.
The mainstream media seems to have largely agreed that McCain is generally too ‘hot’ in debates, and Obama is too ‘cold’ and that maybe they’re going to adopt one another’s characteristic this evening. Standard strategy for the front runner is simply not to slip up so expect a relatively conservative performance from Obama, especially as he requested this debate to be first rather than the economy one because his campaign wanted to hold the best one till last.
McCain on the other hand has to have a big night. His suspension stunt has backfired, with Democrats saying that they had a deal all but agreed upon until he arrived, and he’s now trailing in the latest polls. With just over a month till the election he needs to force a slip up from Obama, who decisively win the debates to reclaim the initiative. In short, he’s looking for a gamechanger.
That’s the conventional wisdom at least, here’s a more exciting version – I call it the:
“First Presidential Debate Drinking Game” (catchy, huh?) though obviously Cherwell is not condoning drinking alcohol here – I’ll be drinking Ribena myself.
The Rules
McCain mentions his time as a POW – 1 finger
Obama mentions Bush when talking about McCain – 1 finger
McCain says “my friends” – 1 finger
Obama says “look folks” – 1 finger
McCain says Obama does not have enough experienced – 1 finger
Obama mentions that he was against the war in Iraq “from the start” – 1 finger
McCain mentions that the surge was his idea – 1 finger
McCain tries to get Obama to admit the surge worked – 2 fingers
Obama admits it – 3 fingers, bonus biscuit
Either candidate mentions Palin – 3 fingers
McCain makes an age joke, Reagan style – 4 fingers
EDIT: Turns out the Huffington Post has a more elaborate (and much better) drinking game for the debate.
———–
And finally, here are some links for your delectation:
NBC’s Tom Brokaw looks at the first ever debate (JFK v. Nixon, 1960).
23/6 have a maybe not 100% accurate version of McCain’s debate prep.
The Washington Post has a bizarre story about an early “McCain won the debate” ad.
Nate Silver over at Cherwell‘s favourite 538.com suggests that the average debate bump for the winner is 2 points and McCain is looking to double down.
5.25pm – It’s been a 24-hour will-he-won’t-he game but McCain has now confirmed that he will be attending tonight’s debate. The topic is ostensibly foreign policy but there will inevitably be questions addressing the current economic crisis too. Trailing in the polls McCain needs a big night to reclaim the lead and for those who say debates don’t matter, just ask Richard Nixon in 1960, or Jimmy Carter in 1980. The first of three Presidential Debates is a potential gamechanger.
Join me from 2am for live commentary on the debate itself or check in from around 1am for a pre-game guide and a roundup of the current state of play.
As I write this, the world is playing witness to extraordinary reports from Washington, USA, about the political wrangling and theatrics which surround the great bail-out plan offered as a solution to the credit crisis by American economists.
Last night, Congress seemed to have come to an agreement about the proposed injection of $700 billion into US financial markets, but by this morning that agreement had fallen apart, with Republicans apparently divided over the terms of the plan and other members of the House desperate that action had to be taken imminently warning that there was no time to beat around the proverbial bush.
There have even been reports that US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson got down on one knee in a moment of desperation to beg Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, to hurry acceptance of the plan he had drawn up.
Pelosi later appeared on ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ programme and was pointedly critical about the behaviour and policies of Republican politicians during the current debate. She also blamed their term in the White House as contributing to the Credit Crisis, pointing out the Democrats’ contrasting commitment to free markets.
And to top things off, the presence of presidential hopefuls McCain and Obama seems only to have complicated things further with some commentators questioning if they should even be involved and others wondering how well the successful candidate will deal with the crisis once they are elected next month.
And the rest of the world…
The public, though, seem to be unnerved by the signals which all of this drama sends out. There is an atmosphere of cautious panic, though few politicians would dare admit it. The footage we’re getting from America of senators openly criticising the tactics of others, of crisis talks, Bush’s address to the nation (and implicitly, the world) and our own Prime Minister, fresh out of a Labour Party Conference, struggling to get attention from the American press and politicians – all of this amounts to startling and historic scenes which puts the importance of America’s dominance of the global markets into perspective.
At home, in the City, thousands of jobs have already been cut with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and re-structuring in other firms like Bradford and Bingley (yesterday) and HSBC (today).
Do Oxford students have anything to worry about?
In short, the answer to that question is ‘yes’. Maybe you hadn’t thought about it before, but the unsettling truth is that all of the above affects each and every one of us. The current climate is one which undoubtedly threatens our sense of security as energetic pre-graduates planning ambitious careers. And even if we’re not planning to start a job in the financial sector, the repercussions of an economic meltdown are already taking their toll on loans, investment, housing and employment in other sectors.
And the credit crisis is even reaching the comfort zone of student life itself. Readers of Cherwell.org will know that our Varsity sports teams are being hit by a loss of sponsorship.
In the coming weeks, Cherwell will be bringing you a great deal of analysis of the current situation and asking what it all means for us. There’ll be coverage in the newspaper as well as online as the world moves to try and bring credit under control. And if you’re still confused about the terminology and basic economic principles in all this, don’t worry, you’re certainly not alone and we’ll be supplementing our coverage with plenty of explanation as to what everything means in plain English.
World events are likely to continue affecting student society sponsorship, external investement in the University and our own personal financial prospects. Cherwell will keep you as up to date on these things as physically possible. Stay tuned.
Call me a cynic but McCain’s announcement, that he’s suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to work on the bailout package, is anything but a ‘non-political’ move.
Today’s Washington Post poll – the same one that put McCain nine points behind Obama nationally ave the Democrat a big edge amongst voters concerned about the economy. Last week’s gaffes – “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” – have not helped what was already McCain’s acknowledged weak issue.
By dramatically abandoning his campaign and returning to Washington McCain is attempting to retake the issue; to portray himself as a strong force who can swoop down on Washington and work above party politics to get this mess fixed. In the face of sliding poll numbers he is hoping to
It is of course a big gamble. The Obama campaign has already hit back hard with “can’t you do more than one thing at once”-style taunts. The big problem, however, is that it’s not altogether clear that this roll of the dice is going to work. How exactly is McCain expecting to be able to sort out the bailout plan? It’s already gridlocked and, for all the bipartisan blustery, McCain’s arrival is going to further politicize an already heated issue.
(Admittedly Democratic) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in reaction: “it would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.” McCain is setting himself up for a big fall here. By returning to Washington he is placing all his chips on a rapid compromise being passed. If that doesn’t happen McCain will be in big trouble.
Why Sarah Palin Matters
Contrary to common perception, the American government is full of some very clever people indeed. A simpleton might think that it’s a bad idea for the Federal Reserve to lend billions of dollars that don’t exist, encourage banks to do the same and ask the government to insure the resulting financial system with money it doesn’t have. A dullard might tell you that if the Federal Government spends far more money than it receives year on year there will be long term consequences. A true Neanderthal will point out that if you encourage banks to give loans to people to who can’t afford to pay them back, it might blow up in your face when they, umm, don’t pay them back.
Clever people, though, know better. Their answers are, in order, the Fractional Reserve, Deficit Spending and the Community Re-investment Act.
The re-establishment of sound money and public finances are essential to America’s long term future, but I will, here, only deal with the last item. Everyone knows that the current financial crisis originated in the American ‘sub-prime’ market. A lot of journalistic ink has been spilt discussing the practices of predatory lenders, but that wasn’t the talk a few years ago. Then it was tight-fisted bankers who were alleged to be engaged in “redlining”, a practice in which people from poor and minority communities are refused mortgages. To combat this The Community-Re-Investment Act was passed in 1977, criminalising those who did not give a certain proportion of loans to the subprime market; it was subsequently expanded in 1995.
Their final two pieces of the puzzle were the Housing and Community Development Acts of 1992, which got Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on board to underwrite and give these subprime mortgages and the establishment of myriad taxpayer funded NGOs, such as ACORN, that would use legal measures to intimidate alleged redliners. The consequence was a massive injection of money into the housing market, generating a housing boom as well as increased home ownership among the desired groups. The loans were parcelled up into little packages and re-sold throughout the financial system. A lot of people with political connections, especially those in the pseudo-private GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made a lot of money.
Of course, eventually house prices stopped rising, oil and food prices started to do so and millions of Americans decided they either couldn’t or wouldn’t keep up with their monthly payments. Fast forward to now and we have Congress scrapping over a bailout to sort out the resulting mess.
I don’t want to make a partisan point. Washington Democrats are up to their necks in this debacle, but so are many, many Republicans. The Bush administration did try to reform the regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in 2005, but it certainly didn’t try hard enough. At some point almost everyone from either party was prepared to cash in, either electorally or financially, from what amounts to the Subprime Pyramid Scam.
So, why is Palin important? When she became Governor of Alaska she promised to sort out two problems. First, a cartel of energy companies that paid almost nothing in tax, received grotesque subsidies and bribed officials to block all competitors; secondly, a corrupt Republican establishment responsible for this and other problems. Palin told the cartel, who were requesting billions of dollars to build a new pipeline, to get lost, introduced competition, taxed the companies at equitable rates and got the new pipeline completed anyway. In so doing she contributed more to meeting America’s energy challenges than literally any other politician alive. She also demonstrated practically the difference between being pro-market and pro-business. As for corrupt Alaska’s Republicans: well, ask them how they feel about her.
Washington is a disgrace. It has spent decades encouraging the poor decisions that caused this crisis and is now proving woefully incapable of even ameliorating it. The Republic has the chance to bring to the White House someone not in the pocket of special interests – be they party, financial, industrial, union or whatever – whose political career is characterised by opposition to the politics of corrupt, crony capitalism that has brought it to this impasse. In all likelihood it will pass up this chance for a smooth talker who rose through Chicago politics by associating with slumlords and machine-politicians and just so happened to be the third largest recipient of bribes (sorry, donations) by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae last year. When the next, even bigger, bailout comes in 15 years, I hope Americans are glad their President, whoever he or she may be, gives a good interview.