Quantcast
Channel: New Statesman Contents
Viewing all 19496 articles
Browse latest View live

From teeth to outer space

$
0
0

This is what human beings do. We wander over landscapes, whether terrestrial, cosmic or conceptual, looking for something different, better, more interesting.

It is OK to be dissatisfied. Human beings, wherever they are in the world, have never settled. That is just one of the lessons we can learn from the discovery of human teeth under a layer of 80,000-year-old stalagmites in a cave in south-east China.

María Martinón-Torres of University College London led the team that made the find that has rewritten human history. Until now, the story was that human beings headed out of Africa into Europe 60,000 years ago. Now, it seems that, at some point between 80,000 and 120,000 years ago, human beings left Africa and reached China. It is not yet clear what happened to those migrants but performing DNA tests on the teeth and comparing the results with DNA from current Chinese populations might give us more information.

What we know is that our species has been searching for something different – better, perhaps – for most of its existence. This has led us to explore far more than the furthest corners of this planet: we have reached out to every planet in the vicinity.

The official report on the last one, Pluto, is now in. Scientists feared that the solar system’s dwarf planet would be something of a dull, grey lump but it has turned out to be the opposite: it is spectacular. We have gone from blurred images of a distant world to a raft of surprising details. First, it is as perfectly spherical as Nasa’s New Horizons probe is able to measure. There seems to be an ice crust, a region containing four-billion-year-old craters, an area the researchers describe as having a “snakeskin” pattern – indications of a surface scarred by wind and an atmosphere that creates occasional frozen rain. Even Pluto’s moons – including Charon, Hydra and Nix – are geologically interesting. The decade-long voyage to Pluto was worth
the effort.

Yet still we are not satisfied. Human beings will soon begin charting a small, mystifying new frontier. The US energy department’s science office is making positive noises about the need to develop a new particle collider. Why? To explore the properties of the subatomic particles known as neutrinos. In particular, scientists want to know more about a phenomenon called “neutrinoless double beta decay”, in which the neutrino performs the unprecedented task of being its own antiparticle. No, it doesn’t make sense but that is the point: get the lowdown on this and new insights will open up.

This is what human beings do. We wander over landscapes, whether terrestrial, cosmic or conceptual, looking for something different, better, more interesting. We are born with “wonder lust”. Maybe the early exit from Africa was driven by necessity but the urge to find the evidence for it was the result of Chinese researchers making speculative searches in remote caves.

The voyage to Pluto was impelled by a similar curiosity. There is no calculable economic gain but it is hard to find anyone who doesn’t think that this kind of drive makes our world a better place – except, perhaps, those in charge of the UK’s science budget. Britain spends a smaller fraction of its GDP on science than any other G8 country. This month, MPs have been debating the government’s threat to cut science funding further. It’s enough to make you wonder. And not in a good way.

NASA

Pig-gate goes global, a nation’s guilt over Volkswagen, and standing in for a billionaire

$
0
0

And so to the Frankfurt Book Fair.

And so to the Frankfurt Book Fair. I’d managed to escape going for the past four years but this year I thought I’d better make the effort. My company, Biteback (the publishers of that book on David “Hameron”), had a stand there and the aim was to identify books from foreign publishers that might work in the UK and sell rights of our books to foreign publishers.

I wasn’t sure what interest there would be in Call Me Dave but I’m delighted that the book has attracted the keen interest of one of the biggest US publishers and we have an agent who thinks that she can sell rights to most European countries. An Estonian publisher told me that our PM is very popular in her country. Who’d have thought?

My most enjoyable moment of the week was having to explain “Pig-gate” to an Israeli publisher. Strangely, I doubt it will be appearing on the shelves of Israeli bookshops very soon.

Talking of Israel, our stand wasn’t far from the Israeli publishers’ collective. It was the only stand with a permanent security presence of two men dressed in black and with earpieces. I walked past it three times a day and I never saw a single person there smile. Even when they had a falafel party (when the security presence increased to six), no one seemed to be enjoying it. I resisted the temptation to wander by humming “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”. What a sad state of affairs it is when publishers feel the need to hire security because of the risk of an anti-Semitic attack – in Germany of all places.

 

Pardon my German

Thirty years ago this summer, I graduated from the University of East Anglia (or the “University of Easy Access”, as it was known in those days) with a degree in German. After spending two years living in Germany, teaching and working as a nurse (no sniggering at the back), I became fluent in the language to the extent that whenever I told a German that I was English, they refused to believe me. In one case, I had to prove it by showing my passport. Sadly, though, having had few opportunities to speak the language in three decades, my oral abilities have declined somewhat. So it was with some trepidation that I drove to Bad Wildungen to visit old friends and the woman I call my “German mother”.

In the end, I needn’t have worried. We picked up as if the previous 30 years hadn’t existed. That’s what true friendship is all about, isn’t it? And my German hadn’t deteriorated quite as much as I’d feared. Even if it had, so many English (or American) words have been incorporated into German that I could probably have got by. We now have three new German verbs – downloaden, streamen and skypen. Ich downloade, du streamst, sie haben geskypt.Ausgezeichnet.

 

Omissions and emissions

This was my first visit to Germany since 2011 but not a lot seems to have changed. The concept of corner shops that stay open all hours still hasn’t reached the country. Having last week attended my third speed awareness course, it has been a delight to be able to drive like the clappers (I reached 130mph in my hired Volvo 4x4) on the Auto­bahn without fear of being stopped by the police. German radio still hasn’t climbed out of the 1980s. Politically, they still obsess about the English and scratch their heads in disbelief at why we are so Eurosceptic (although that is gradually changing). And they want to know all about Kate.

Ask them about the Volkswagen scandal, though, and invariably the subject will be changed in the shortest time possible. The Germans know all about national guilt and the scandal has brought it all back. “It has brought shame on the whole country,” said a friend. “No one believes there were only two people who knew about it. There must have been hundreds who just turned a blind eye.” Now, where have I heard that before?

 

The Italian job

This week, I’m publishing a book on Silvio Berlusconi by the award-winning journalist Alan Friedman, called My Way. It is the nearest thing Berlusconi will get to an auto­biography, I suspect. He spent a hundred hours with Friedman, talking about his life, experiences and the people he has met.

It’s all on video, too, and Friedman is releasing a lot of it concurrently with the book, including some fascinating footage of Vladimir Putin and other world leaders opining about Berlusconi. The former Italian premier gave Friedman total editorial control over the manuscript, although a few months before publication he bought the Italian publisher of the book! So far, I haven’t received an offer I couldn’t refuse to buy Biteback. But there has been an incident involving a pig’s head . . .

 

Call me Michael

Back in London on Monday, it was the book launch that much of Westminster had been waiting for. Altitude London, on the 29th floor of the Millbank Tower, is a great venue for such an event and it played host to 400 people, eagerly awaiting Michael Ashcroft’s author’s speech. Sadly all they got was a speech from me instead. Unbeknown to
anyone, Michael has been seriously ill for the past month. At one stage, it was touch and go. Thankfully he is on the road to recovery but he was unable to make the launch of Call Me Dave. I suspect that he had to be strapped to his bed, because I know he would have been desperate to attend.

Much has been said about him supposedly hanging Isabel Oakeshott and me out to dry by not doing any interviews about the book. Only she and I knew the truth and for once we both kept our respective gobs shut. As it was, I read out the book-launch speech that Michael would have given, had he been there. It was the only time in my life that I have been asked to stand in for a billionaire. Michael finished with: “I have fought many political and business battles over the past half-century but this is the first one – and, I trust, the last – in which I haven’t led from the front.” We both look forward to him rejoining the fray very soon – as, I am sure, does the Prime Minister. 

Hannelore Foerster/Getty Images

How the home nations qualified

$
0
0

Northern Ireland and Wales will make their mark in France next summer.

Have the home nations finally learned some of the footballing lessons they have been handed over the past two decades? First, England won their Euro 2016 qualifying group with a flawless record, becoming the sixth team ever to do so. Then Northern Ireland qualified for their first major tournament since the 1986 World Cup in Mexico, topping a group in which they were the fifth seed. Finally, Wales, after a late stumble, booked tickets to their first major tournament since the 1958 World Cup in Sweden, where a 17-year-old called Pelé made his name.

Scotland had a tough task in the Group of Death and weren’t far off. They showed enough promise for their manager, Gordon Strachan, to be offered a new two-year contract. The Republic of Ireland, who finished just above the Scots, are marginal favourites to beat Bosnia-Herzegovina over two legs in mid-November and join the rest at Euro 2016.

What is behind this resurgence? In the case of England, it would be a mistake to get carried away, given their tendency to blink in the floodlights of a major tournament. Nonetheless, there is a sense that the last residues of the “golden generation” are being washed out of the bloodstream, with all the baggage that came with them.

Roy Hodgson is no tactical genius but he doesn’t need to be. His first task was to stop England being beaten by lesser teams. Rather than managing a team orbiting around ageing superstars or the next, over-promoted great hope, Hodgson has turned the Premiership’s greatest assets to his advantage: athleticism, pace and a pressing game, played in the opposition’s half. Players such as Danny Welbeck and Fabian Delph might not be in everyone’s first XI but they are perfectly fitted for international football. The pegs have begun to fit the holes.

For Wales and Northern Ireland, automatic qualification is a very different type of achievement, because of the mental hurdle they have leaped and the way they have done it. Both teams have distinctive styles. Wales have superstar quality in Gareth Bale (who won his country 11 points, with six goals and two assists) and Arsenal’s dynamic Aaron Ramsey. But they are built on firmer foundations than that. They have a robust and ball-playing back four, qualities embodied by the Swansea City pair Neil Taylor and the captain, Ashley Williams: one of the most underrated centre-backs in the Premier League.

Northern Ireland’s talisman has been the rangy Kyle Lafferty, alumnus of Burnley, Rangers, FC Scion and Palermo, who scored seven goals in eight qualifying games. Lafferty holds the ball up like a Velcro pipe cleaner, runs tirelessly (despite being short of match fitness as a benchwarmer at Norwich City) and gets his fair share of yellow cards and suspensions through his harassment of opposition defenders. In Northern Ireland’s crucial 3-1 home victory against Greece, he was replaced by the equally physical Josh Magennis of Kilmarnock, a goalkeeper for much of his youth career, who scored his first international goal. What’s more, three of the back four are hardened enough to start for Tony Pulis’s West Brom.

It would be a misconception to assume that Northern Ireland are a throwback to the days of “lob it up to lofty”. The team is full of diminutive and technically gifted players. Southampton’s Steven Davis stands out. It is also significant that five of the squad graduated from the Manchester United Academy. They are confident in their ability and play without shackles – much as the smaller nations that have been giving England such difficulties in recent times do.

One should not forget that because of the expansion of the tournament (in which 24 teams will compete next year, rather than 16), Europe’s best were spread across more qualifying groups. Yet this was no fluke. Northern Ireland and Wales will make their mark in France next summer.

STU FOSTER/GETTY

Reading the Pussy Riot act

$
0
0

Nadya Tolokonnikova, of female punk protest collective Pussy Riot, on the danger of UK conservatism, living in Moscow, and how the middle-class anti-Putin movement is waning.

“Moscow calling!” The Belarusian rock band Brutto tear into their adaptation of the Clash classic. A roar erupts from the audience packing out Koko, the opulent late Victorian theatre (now a club) in Camden, north London. A giant discoball reflects the 1,500-strong crowd’s red-and-white striped Belorussian revolutionary flags.

It’s the tenth anniversary of the Belarus Free Theatre, a group that has gained international support in solidarity with artists oppressed by authoritarian regimes. The gig, tagged “I’m with the Banned”, featured protest artists from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine outlawed in their home countries.

None have caused greater disruption than Pussy Riot. The feminist punk collective, familiar from their balaclavas and neon tights, are as angry as ever. The publicity around Pussy Riot peaked in 2012 with their guerrilla “Punk Prayer” gig at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, which landed two members in Siberian penal colonies.

But Nadya Tolokonnikova, who was released in December 2013 after 18 months, swaps the band’s avant-garde approach for a straightforward speech when she addresses this London crowd. Stepping rather shyly on to the stage in cherry red Doc Martens, a black skirt and baggy brown “Matriarchy Now” T-shirt, the 25-year-old’s presence nevertheless stuns the crowd into silence.

She warns Britain against authoritarianism. “You might think that conservative, chauvinist pigs are far away. But actually they could be very close . . . If Prime Minister Cameron calls migrants a ‘human swarm’, we have to show migrants our warmth and solidarity.”

I meet Tolokonnikova afterwards in the sweaty greenroom. She is looking doubtfully at a packet of crisps, running a hand through her choppy black hair. The only words I can make out from her Russian are “Worcester” and “sauce”. She crinkles her nose and opts for an apple instead.

“The problem I see here and in other European countries and America is that the young generation – who didn’t take part in all these empowering movements in the Sixties and the Seventies, for who it's just history – take this freedom for granted.” She gesticulates theatrically, her long red fingernails glinting in the harsh backstage lighting. “That’s why I think there’s a possibility they can lose it. Because they don’t want to fight any more.

“When I ask, ‘Why don’t you take part in political demonstrations?’ they tell me that every problem is solved. But it’s not true!” she says. “Politicians know it and they do what they want. That’s why there’s a rise in conservative tendencies across Europe, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Trump in the US, obviously, and David Cameron. I want young people in your country to think more about that.”

Despite her international appearances, Russia is never far from her mind. Since being released from prison, Tolokonnikova has been horsewhipped by Cossacks while protesting at the Sochi Winter Olympics, had paint thrown in her eyes by plain-clothed policemen, attacked when trying to give food to former fellow prisoners, and most recently was detained over a prison rights demonstration. Yet she still lives in Moscow.

“I can still do something useful in Moscow. We don’t want to just give Russia to Putin and go away.”

But she believes that Russia’s anti-Putin movement has died down; she claims it peaked at the end of 2011, when Putin announced he would serve a third term and Pussy Riot formed. “After Putin came to power, he created a huge amount of laws to stop and fine protesters . . . He put a lot of people in prison. Obviously, the activity went down, because people who take part in demonstrations are mainly middle-class. They have something to lose and they’d rather not lose it,” Tolokonnikova says.

“But they don’t sleep, they are still awake – waiting. I have a lot of people in my circles who aren’t demonstrating right now, but they are ready.” As she warned in her speech: “Jailing your enemy is a bad idea. He will only grow stronger and his voice will become louder.”

Staging a Revolution: I’m With the Banned, a solidarity concert on 18 October at KoKo, preceded Staging a Revolution: a two week festival comprising 10 productions and 10 discussion platforms to celebrate Belarus Free Theatre’s 10th anniversary in 2015.

VIANNEY LE CAER/REX SHUTTERSTOCK

The tragedy of James Bond

$
0
0

007 is still supposed to be a hero but if you knew him in real life, you would be warning all your friends not to invite him to their parties.

There is something rather tragic about James Bond. In advance of seeing Spectre, the latest instalment in the super-spy sex-murder franchise, I watched several of the old films again. The experience was like having your forebrain slowly and laboriously beaten to death by a wilting erection wrapped in a copy of the Patriot Act: savage and silly and just a little bit pathetic.

James Bond is a guilty pleasure but one in which the pleasure is increasingly overwhelmed by the guilt. Even Daniel Craig seems to know this. The actor acknowledged, just before the premiere of his latest turn as Bond, that the character “is actually a misogynist. A lot of women are drawn to him chiefly because he embodies a certain kind of danger and never sticks around for too long.” Craig, who has fronted a gender equality campaign affiliated to Amnesty International and appears to be about as unsexist as anyone who has worked in Hollywood for 20 years can be, gives us the Bond the 21st century needs: a character who is aware that he is both a relic and a thug and is surprised that he still gets to be the hero.

Nobody is saying that Bond isn’t fun. On top of all the explosions and wacky gadgets, the Sean Connery-era Bond movies are so mind-blowingly sexist that they are hilarious. The revamped films aren’t much better – the last time we saw Bond, he was watching a villain tie up his sex-slave lover, place a glass of Scotch on her head as the camera aimed at her cleavage, then shoot her just to prove how evil he was. Bond’s verdict? “Waste of good Scotch.” Again, gross enough to be funny: until you remember that this is the guy we are supposed to be rooting for. It is possible to watch the films ironically but it is hard to sustain a rigorous internal critique when the scenery is blowing up and Dr No must be stopped at all costs. Ultimately, it is terribly difficult to sustain an ironic erection. To do so involves a kind of anxiety that the men and boys of the 21st century know very well.

The new Bond films work because they tackle that anxiety head-on. The director Sam Mendes told Empire magazine that 2012’s Skyfall – the highest-grossing Bond film in history – was about ageing, uncertainty and loss and that this dynamic forces itself through the action scenes, the ridiculous firefights, the awesome bit in which the train carriage packed with explosives ploughs through someone’s ceiling just because they had the budget. Daniel Craig has not been given enough credit for taking a character who was a cardboard throwback even in the 1960s and playing him straight: as a wall-eyed, traumatised thug, a protagonist who is two-dimensional precisely because he is empty inside.

Craig animates the automaton that is Bond by asking just what it would take to make a person behave in this horrific way – and like any piece of well-done puppetry, the effect is sinister. Daniel Craig is the Bond we deserve, a Bond who takes seriously the job of embodying a savage yearning for a lost fantasy of the 1950s. It is about masculinity, yes, but also about Britishness, about whiteness and about heterosexuality, about the loss of certainty in all of these in a changing world.

That is why I agree with Roger Moore that Bond cannot be played by a woman or a person of colour, except in pastiche – Bond’s whiteness and maleness are as much a part of who he is as the gadgets and the sharp suits and the romantic alcoholism. Indeed, these are almost all of who he is. Bond is anxious 20th-century masculinity incarnate, a relic of 20th-century power struggling to come to terms with its own irrelevance, still fighting cartoon Cold War villains as the planet burns – which is what gives the films their melancholy beauty.

The franchise is dripping with camp nostalgia for a time that never really was, a time when men could be real men, which meant that they were allowed to hurt whoever they wanted and still get away with it. It’s right up there in the job description: license to kill. Bond is the kind of hero he is because he is allowed to do anything he wants to anyone he likes, from harassment to outright murder, all while wearing snappy suits and driving cool cars and getting every single one of the girls, for a rather suspicious value of ‘getting’. He may be a dangerous sociopath, but he’s our dangerous sociopath, so of course we’re rooting for him, because damn, look at the other guy. He’s got an eyepatch. And a cat. And he dresses like your granddad if your granddad was the weird judge off Project Runway.

The ’license to kill’ thing always bothered me - on a logistical level as much as an ethical one. Before the opening credits even roll, Bond has usually caused enough mayhem to keep some poor desk clerk occupied in paperwork for a year. Whose job is it to follow Bond around with a stack of forms and a can of disinfectant, explaining his behaviour to grieving widows and elderly parents who don’t understand why their daughter has been petrified in gold paint by goons and left to die in a hotel room by some sleazeball she’s just met? Presumably the job falls to Moneypenny, who seems unaccountably upset that she never gets a shot at Bond, despite the fact that ‘Bond girl’ is a career in which 'work-life balance' is extremely awkward to negotiate.

The problem with the way we watch Bond is not that Bond is a killer. I rather like films about serial killers, those gory thrillers that seduce you into rooting for the twisted anti-hero over the good guy. The problem with Bond is that he is supposed to be the good guy. He is a borderline rapist who is employed by the government to murder people – and yet he is not an anti-hero. He is just a hero. If your child said they wanted to grow up to be just like Hannibal Lecter, you would be worried. Somehow Bond gets a pass and, come Hallowe’en, a legion of little boys will be dressing as 007 with the full support of their doting parents. Bond is a hero for no other reason than that he is on our side, which is how most western nations and particularly the British come to terms with their particular legacy of horror – with a quiet embarrassment that nonetheless knows how to defend itself by force.

The dilemma of James Bond is a pantomime version of the dilemma facing most men who grew up watching the films and wondering what it would be like to be that guy, whom everybody seems to love not in spite of the awful things he does but because of them. In real life, anyone who behaved even slightly like James Bond would be ostracised, arrested, or both. And that is the problem. Bond is still supposed to be a hero but if you knew him in real life, you would be warning all your friends not to invite him to their parties. That disconnect follows men home from the cinema and into their daily lives, because most of the behaviours that are supposed to make you a hero – the things you are still supposed to do if you want to be a strong, respected, manly man – also make you an unqualified arsehole.

That is why James Bond isn’t evil. James Bond, more than anything, is a tragic figure and his tragedy is the tragedy of white, imperialist masculinity in the 21st century. It is a tragedy of irrelevance that becomes all the more poignant and painful in the retelling. It cannot last for ever and it must not last for ever – but while it does I’ll thank you to pass me the popcorn.

Wikimedia

Atypical girls: the women of rock in their own words

$
0
0

The question, “What’s it like being a girl in a band?” has dogged female rock musicians for decades. I wanted to make a programme in which they tell their own stories.

They say that men and women approach music in different ways. At least, that’s how it was presented to me when I started in music journalism. Boys were geeks – filing their records in alphabetical order, showing off how much they knew – while for girls the relationship was much more emotional; they cared less about who played what on a song and when, and more about how it made them feel. This always irked me, because somewhere in there was the suggestion that boys take music more seriously than girls; as though collecting an album in multiple formats implies deeper engagement than listening to one copy till the tape wears thin. I’ve always thought that men and women feel exactly the same way about music. It’s just that they talk about it in different ways.

That’s partly why I wanted to make a programme in which women tell stories about being in bands. A few months back I reviewed Kim Gordon’s memoir, Girl in a Band, in these pages and I couldn’t forget the way she began the section on Sonic Youth. “A lot has been written about Sonic Youth,” she said. “Here is what stands out for me.” As the bassist and a founder-member of a cult group that always attracted evangelical followers, Gordon knew she was writing against 30 years of testimony by music journalists, most of them male, and that the story of her band had already been told loudly, definitively, countless times by other people. Many of us have encountered the funny sense of ownership that men feel about the bands they like. “I love my music,” he says, and he doesn’t mean it as his mother might say he loves his food. The whole reason Gordon got into a band, she said, was to break into the male band dynamic and experience it from the inside – not as a muse or a fan, but as another boy.

Rock’s engine room remains woefully understaffed by girl drummers, bassists and guitarists. It’s no accident that the era considered most welcoming to female rock musicians was punk, when you weren’t expected to play your instrument very well. Why don’t girls turn to drums and guitars as often as men? Is it because, as Miki Berenyi from the Nineties indie band Lush told me, it’s no fun going down to Denmark Street to try out a guitar when six men stand around in the showroom trying to give you a demo? The question, “What’s it like being a girl in a band?” has dogged female rock musicians for decades and most of them head it off at the first pass. But all of them are pushing against rock’s dominant species, whether they’re willing to talk about it or not.

Filming took us from Shoreditch to Macclesfield, from Dayton, Ohio to a suburban town in the California desert. Some of the most interesting musicians I met had been reluctant players – chance meetings, relationships with other band members and sudden vacancies would lead to an entire life in music. Tina Weymouth of Talking Heads only took up the bass because no one else would play it (she’s married to the band’s drummer, Chris Frantz); Gillian Gilbert became a member of New Order partly because she was handy with the technical side of things (she’s married to their drummer, Stephen Morris). Any lone girl in a band of boys was invariably dragged to the front in photo shoots and singled out for magazine covers, often to the dismay of the others – it’s painful watching Robert Palmer vying for stage-space alongside the freewheeling Elkie Brooks in Vinegar Joe. Yet these women so rarely got to tell their stories. Weymouth was surprised we wanted to talk to her without her husband present. Gilbert told me a good story about New Order, who are currently touring without Peter Hook. One night, in the early days, they’d had a big house party and the police came and shut them down. It turned out that Hooky, who’d gone to bed early, had made the call.

The testimony of female musicians is often a nuanced one, characterised by a feeling of wry bemusement and the sense that there was another – possibly better – life to be had, after the madness was over. June Millington, from the splendidly titled Fanny – a West Coast blues-rock group that became the first all-girl band to be signed to a major label in America – now runs a music summer camp for girls in a sleepy town in Massachusetts.

What was it like being on the road, you ask an old rocker who’s told his tale a thousand times. “Oh, crazy days!” he might say. “Absolute madness!” Ask Tina Weymouth and you get this: “Keeping your clothes clean, that was a big deal. So, after a night at the Roundhouse, opening for the Ramones and being gobbed on, you’d take a bath and then the clothes would go in too, with the little shampoo bottle, and then you’d stamp on them, like at a vineyard. You’d pull them out, rinse them and hang them up to dry and then pack them wet, you know, which would be heavy.” Which gives you a better insight into what touring is really like?

When Blondie first appeared in the mid-Seventies, Debbie Harry was an art project – a wonderfully smart Monroe/sci-fi composite, an ironic parody of what men wanted women in bands to be. Tanya Donelly of Throwing Muses once said that “Being put on a pedestal is the most degrading thing in the world”; Kathleen Hanna, a ringleader of the riot grrrl movement, did a “media blackout” with her band Bikini Kill in response to condescending press. But while jobbing, beer-and-skittles, all-girl rock bands flourished in riot grrrl as they had done in punk, they’d been there much longer – from right back in the Sixties. It’s just that, unlike a lot of male groups operating outside the charts, they seem to have been forgotten.

I went to Hamburg to meet the remaining members of the Liverbirds (pronounced lie-vah; Carla Lane nicked their name for her sitcom) – an all-girl rock’n’roll band, now in their seventies, who played the Cavern Club alongside the Beatles and were sent out to the Reeperbahn in the early Sixties on the same promotional circuit. They never came back to England. Their look was masculine – apparently Astrid Kirchherr helped them with it. They played Chuck Berry covers and songs with names like “Peanut Butter”. They performed nightly, for a hefty pay packet, on Hamburg’s street of sailors and hookers – and were all aged 16 and 17. The Liverbirds rolled joints for Jimi Hendrix; Jimmy Savile was one of their earliest supporters. Did nothing dodgy ever happen to them? Ever? There’s something fascinating in the way these women talk about the Sixties – you held your own, you had fun and took the creeps with a pinch of salt. Not true of Seventies LA, where the “jail-bait”-obsessed impresario Kim Fowley put together his teenage band the Runaways, with Joan Jett on guitar and Cherie Currie on lead vocals and corset.

Survivor: Lita Ford (centre) with the Runaways and their manager Kim Fowley in Los Angeles, 1976

In July this year their bassist Jackie Fox, now working as an attorney, alleged in an interview with the Huffington Post that Fowley had drugged and raped her while Currie and Jett sat by and let it happen. Those two have denied it but their guitarist Lita Ford told me she believed it was true. “I’d love to take their goddamn heads off,” she said, of Fowley and Scott Anderson, their
road manager who got Currie pregnant at 16. “But unfortunately they’re dead, so I can’t.”

Fowley haunted our interviews in America – everyone seemed to have had a run-in with him. He’d called Weymouth in the middle of the night urging her to leave Talking Heads and do a solo album with him. Millington remembered a Hollywood party where he’d stood in the middle of the room and offered $100 to anyone who would blow him, right then and there. He’d even approached the Bangles, but they already had their own Svengali.

Lita Ford was just 15 when she joined the Runaways. She’d been to see Black Sabbath aged 13 with a boy cousin and was converted to hard rock. She took up electric guitar with the encouragement of her Italian mother (“Oh Lita, you must play the Black Magic Woman again!”). While the Runaways’ short career was in many ways an impossibly bleak story, Ford and the drummer Sandy West – “She wouldn’t have hesitated to knock anybody out” – never lost the excitement of being in the band; West was trying to get them back together right up to her death in 2006.

And Lita? She is a prisoner of rock’n’roll, in a good way, her voice edged with hard living, whipping out her Gibson to give us a few bars of the Runaways’ signature tune “Cherry Bomb”. Is she unchanged because she’s forever ‘married’ to her music, or because she was frozen in time at the moment she got her brief blast of fame? There are dozens more stories like hers out there, if we continue to look for them.

“Girl in a Band” is broadcast on Friday 30 October on BBC4 (10pm)

GUNTER ZINT/K & K ULF KRUGER OHG/REDFERNS

The Conservatives aren't planning a war on poverty - but on the poor

$
0
0

Defeat in the Lords could be the moment it all starts to unravel for the Tories, says Stewart Lansley. 

The Lords have dealt a hammer blow to the government’s plans for tax credits and the next round of budget cuts. The revolt by a mix of opposition peers, crossbenchers, bishops and government loyalists is forcing  the government into a rethink on a flagship policy and has thrown the Chancellor’s deficit reducing plans badly off course.

But is the rebellion merely a one-off move? Will it force a reluctant Chancellor into an embarrassing U-turn, but end there, leaving the government with a free ride for the rest of its social programme?  Or is it the start of a wider momentum against the full force of the government’s social plans. Could this be the beginning of a more significant turning point, the end of public and political acquiescence with the government overall social strategy?

The government must have hoped that it would be able to get away with a continuation of the post-2010 programme of austerity, with cuts in welfare spending and in benefits and its long term goal to shrink the state.

The planned cuts to tax credits are just one tiny plank in a long list of welfare and tax measures that, together, will have a devastating impact on the incomes and life chances of the poorest in society.  In the highly controversial Welfare Reform and Work Bill alone, there’s the plan to scrap the Child Poverty Act – with its targets, duties and commitments on reducing poverty and supported by the Conservatives in 2010 – as well as the lowering of the benefit cap, a four-year freeze on most working-age benefits and a two-child limit for tax credits.

Central to these wider plans is the proposal to abolish the official definition of poverty and replace it with measures that will, at a stroke, reduce the official poverty count. There’s also the promise to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants, one the National Housing Federation has been bullied into accepting, and the new measures to weaken an already disempowered trade union movement.  Then, at the other end of the scale, inheritance and corporation taxes are to be cut still further, while executive earnings are continuing to race away from the rest of the workforce.  The impact of this mix of measures is clear – they will allow the ceiling to go on rising and the floor to continue to sink.

The government likes to tell us otherwise.  Michael Gove calls on the Tories to become the “warriors for the dispossessed”.  David Cameron tells the Conservative conference that he plans an "all-out assault on poverty". The reality is quite different. What the government is planning is not a war on poverty but on the poor.

Until the Lords rebellion, the government seemed to be getting away with this political doublespeak.  The public, softened up by the government’s ongoing propaganda war against the welfare and benefit system, and years of myth-making, have for the most part gone along with the government’s wider austerity strategy. But could the tide now be about to turn?  Could their Lordships have triggered a wider protest? In the 1980s Mrs Thatcher banned her minsters and civil servants from using the poverty word. Cameron is trying too to wipe the poor out of the political script by redefining them away. Real levels of poverty may go on rising, and the think tanks and campaigners may bleat, but official figures will show them falling. The government may yet wriggle out of the tax credit crisis, but they could yet be in for a much bumpier ride than their election victory suggested.  

Smug marrieds: has Sharon Horgan’s and Rob Delaney’s Catastrophe lost its edge?

$
0
0

To make a pearl, you need grit and I am wondering where that little bit of necessary sand is going to come from this time around.

OK, I’m just going to whisper this and then I’ll run away: I think that Catastrophe (Tuesdays, 10pm), Sharon Horgan’s and Rob Delaney’s previously magnificent wonky relationship sitcom, might be in danger of becoming a little bit smug. The first series began with a one-night stand that quite rapidly turned into something altogether more, to be blunt, sticky. The second, for which we have all been waiting so impatiently, involves a time jump – and we are talking years, not weeks.

Sharon (an Irish, determined teacher at an inner-London school) and Rob (an American, inept advertising executive) have two children now: Frankie, the boy to whom she was about to give birth prematurely at the end of the first series, and a baby girl with an Irish name that no one can pronounce. They are also (briefly) in possession of a rescue dog that goes by the ultra-cute name of Mabel.

To accommodate this tick-box family, Sharon and Rob have moved out of her cramped flat and into – oh, my eyes, what’s this? – a huge and painfully desirable Victorian terrace with Farrow & Ball paintwork and the kind of kitchen that I fantasise about while staring at primelocation.com late at night. Yes, Rob might still be kind of rubbish at his irredeemably shallow job but not so rubbish that he hasn’t been able to bag them a mortgage on a £2m house.

As Sharon’s old flatmate Melissa (Sarah Niles) pointed out at a party celebrating the new baby’s arrival (there were pink helium balloons and everything), it’s a far cry from the days when they shared “a bedroom and a dildo above Chicken Cottage”. At this rate, the awful Fran (Ashley Jensen) is going to be redundant as a character. Now that her friends’ home is lovelier than hers, she’ll have nowhere to put her scorn but her Mulberry bag. Perhaps this is why she hasn’t yet appeared.

To make a pearl, you need grit and I am wondering where that little bit of necessary sand is going to come from this time around. “You live on a cream puff!” yelled Rob at Sharon, as she lay in bed eating ice cream out of a mug, picking fights with him. It was a line that rather fell flat, given that she really does live on a cream puff now. I want her life and I bet you do, too. It’s just adorable. She and he are gorgeous and funny and rich and still amazingly keen to have sex with each other.

Their children are sweet. Their families are loving, sticking around even when Sharon comes over all post-partum and calls her mother-in-law (Carrie Fisher, with a face that does not move . . . at all) a haemorrhoid. Ditto their friends, for all that Chris (Mark Bonnar) is still such a class-A weirdo (oh, that my weirdo friends were so quotable) and Dave (Daniel Lapaine) is still such a massive show-off (oh, that my show-off friends would turn up with specially commissioned cakes for me: even a cake featuring an image of my swollen breasts).

What made the first series of Catastrophe such a hit was that it all seemed so provisional. I don’t mean the writing; I’m sure that Horgan and Delaney sweated every word. I mean the set-up. It was built on a kind of frantic contingency and was underpinned with hope. However lavatorial the gags, it had an old-fashioned sweetness that seemed almost to belong to another age (I am thinking, I suppose, of Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant, to whom Delaney bears a passing resemblance). Here, it seemed to say, is life: it’s often crap but it is also, if you’re lucky, lovely. Just because you’re muddling through – just because your twenties and thirties have failed to deliver a private life that is even halfway to being perfect – it doesn’t mean that there won’t be happiness, even love. If it had a message, it was that you don’t need a range cooker in your kitchen and a Bugaboo pushchair in your hall to be content, fulfilled.

But what now? We’ve already seen Sharon’s and Rob’s cooker, which is big and shiny. The aspirational baby buggy can’t be far away. I fear that its all-terrain wheels may prove to be the enemy of all that was best about this show; though I hope to God that I’m wrong.

PAUL THOMPSON

Rumble in the jungle: how Heart of Darkness brought Orson Welles to the airwaves

$
0
0

James McAvoy brings a hardness that could shatter walnuts to Orson Welles’s Heart of Darkness on BBC Radio 4.

An audacious radio adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s 1899 novella (24 October, 2.30pm) used Orson Welles’s super-cinematic but abandoned 1939 film screenplay and starred James McAvoy as the steamer captain Marlow, charged to travel up the Congo in search of the uncontrolled, native-mulching ivory agent Kurtz. After RKO Pictures rejected it on the grounds of budget and over-strangeness, Welles was forced to ditch the project (with its ambitious camera ideas) and move on to his back-up plan, Citizen Kane (which had a few ideas of its own).

Welles’s attachment to the Conrad story had been intense. He had gone so far as to shoot some test footage, complete with model jungle and boat (lit so noir that you can scarcely make them out), and recorded an atmos-dripping radio narration in 1938 with his Mercury Productions. One suspects that he might have been attracted to Heart of Darkness for the voice-over opportunity alone, so tremendous are Conrad’s lines.

McAvoy, a 36-year-old Scotsman, has worked so often in Hollywood that his US accent is seamless. But where the part reads as relatively moderate on the page, McAvoy gave it a limitless, lonely intensity: “All that mysterious life of the wilderness that stirs in the forest . . . the abomination . . . the powerless disgust, the surrender, the hate . . .”

The scale of the cost and legend, and the success of Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now– which in 1979 updated the action to the Vietnam War – might eternally put movie studios off any further adaptations of Heart of Darkness (Nicolas Roeg made a TV version in 1993 that looked only half committed to the idea of it as a film). And so it is that rare thing: an important book that remains largely ungrabbed: something that nobody has quite got a handle on, sitting there waiting to be brilliant.

Where Coppola’s script is ever moving towards the head-lolling hulk of Colonel Kurtz and Brando, Welles is dedicated to a more sly, anti-fascist subtext and places Marlow to the fore. It is his journey of discovery, which suited radio utterly. The rest of the cast did well enough but it was Mc­Avoy who sounded like the one grown-up, the pulse. He brought a hardness that could have shattered walnuts. 

ANDREW COWIE,ANDREW COWIE/AFP/Getty Images

George Osborne’s fear principle, the perils of the eleven-plus, and why technology is killing sport

$
0
0

Even if grammar schools could eliminate social bias from their recruitment – so that each social class was represented in proportion to its numbers in the general child population – all would not be well.

Commentators suggest that the cuts in tax credits will do for George Osborne what the poll tax did for Margaret Thatcher, or what the abandonment of the 10p income-tax band did for Gordon Brown. Even Norman Tebbit has expressed doubts about the policy, which now faces defeat in the House of Lords. Yet I doubt it will do the Tories much damage, still less put Jeremy Corbyn in office. Osborne is the most skilful politician of his generation. It is said of some sportsmen that they can see scoring opportunities on the field of play that are invisible to ordinary mortals. Something similar can be said of the Chancellor. Who else could have got away with introducing an “austerity” policy in the depths of a recession – on the laughable grounds that Britain could end up like Greece – then abandoning it without anybody really registering and, finally, persuading the electorate in 2015 that it should vote for more “austerity”?

Expect Osborne quietly to modify the tax credit cuts in next month’s Autumn Statement. Because the details will be buried in Treasury small print and few people understand tax credits anyway, nobody will notice what Osborne does, just as nobody noticed that he had abandoned austerity in 2012. People will still be worse off but not quite as badly off as they expected to be. Most will conclude that they can live with a bit more austerity because it keeps the country safe from bankruptcy. The Chancellor has built a political career on the false premise that the country is perpetually on the edge of ruin. As any politician knows, fear works better than hope. Osborne is a master at
applying that principle.

 

Bad grammar

Arguments about selection at the age of 11 – revived by the government’s decision to allow the Weald of Kent Grammar School in Tonbridge to open an “annexe” nine miles away in Sevenoaks – centre on whether grammar schools create social mobility. They plainly don’t. Even in their heyday, they recruited disproportionately from the middle classes and hardly at all from the semi-skilled or unskilled working classes.

In the 164 grammar schools that survive, mostly clustered in Tory-controlled areas such as Kent, Lincolnshire, Essex and Buckinghamshire (as well as suburban London), only 3 per cent of pupils are eligible for free school meals. All would be well, their defenders say, if there were more grammar schools and they made more efforts to recruit children from poor homes.

All would not then be well. Even if grammar schools could eliminate social bias from their recruitment – so that each social class was represented in proportion to its numbers in the general child population – all would not be well. Selection by ability and/or aptitude into separate schools at 11 is wrong. Leave aside the impossibility of finding a reliable test of a child’s potential: selection leaves a majority with the pain of failure and, according to some research, failure depresses IQ. The middle classes once knew this. That was why they were the biggest supporters of abolishing grammar schools in the first place.

 

No steely determination

When there is trouble in the financial services industry, largely caused by the industry’s foolishness, ministers ride to the rescue, providing billions of pounds to bail out banks. When steel plants in Redcar, Scunthorpe, Motherwell and elsewhere are in dire straits because of vagaries in world markets beyond the industry’s control, ministers shrug their shoulders and say that nothing can be done. Will ministers therefore please stop banging on about manufacturing, northern powerhouses and a rebalanced British economy and admit that they couldn’t give a toss about anything beyond the City of London and Canary Wharf?

 

Time for a carrier change

The ban on large shops handing out free plastic bags must be among the least grumbled-about new laws in history. That is probably because people can still get as many as they want if they buy a goldfish, an axe or a leg of lamb, go to smaller shops, or exploit one of many other loopholes. Besides, 5p isn’t much to pay if you happen to own sufficient goldfish and axes. But here’s the puzzle. Surveys suggest that most people think that plastic bags are bad things and should be banned. So who were all those people who took more than 20 million supermarket bags home every day and chucked them around the countryside?

 

Trial by television

Technology, I fear, will be the death of top-level sport. International cricket matches are delayed by interminable references to the “third umpire”, who sits “upstairs”, peering into a TV screen. Even when he gives his verdict, still the decision is frequently disputed. Now a rugby union World Cup quarter-final is decided by a last-minute penalty awarded to Australia because the referee deemed a Scot was offside. Replays allegedly proved that he wasn’t. The referee, everyone says, should have been allowed to consult “the television match official”. Yet “the big screen” is already used to confirm the legality of most tries and incidences of “foul play”. As a result, rugby matches, which used to take little more than 90 minutes, now commonly last two hours. Again, the use of slow-motion replays from several different angles often fails to resolve anything conclusively and losing sides still cry, “We wuz robbed!”

The pressure to get decisions right grows continually because the financial stakes for everybody involved in sport are now so high. Sport has been subsumed into capitalism. Just as big companies employ armies of lawyers, so do big sports teams; for example, QCs defend rugby players (otherwise known in top sporting circles as “assets”) from charges of foul or dangerous play, made by a “citing commissioner” who studies TV replays. How long before tribunals are set up to allow lawyers to argue that, because of refereeing errors, a match result should be declared null and void?

Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images

Did an app get Jeremy Corbyn elected Labour leader?

$
0
0

The remarkable story of one man - and the invention that changed Labour forever. 

The campaign to elect Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party was won in part thanks to the staggering number of volunteers he and his team energised. What held the campaign back was that the Corbyn campaign, unlike his rivals’, lacked infrastructure.

In Birmingham, I oversaw a small team phone banking in Unite offices during the few hours between secretaries going home and the cleaners locking up; there were phones and call-sheets, but also the worry that whoever answered had already been contacted by someone else in another office, wasting everyone’s time. It was not well organised.

That was until Ben Soffa developed the Canvassing App, a website that allowed volunteers to set up a phone bank anywhere with an internet connection, so long as they were signed up to the Corbyn campaign. It contained the details of every Labour Party member in the country, with one person at a time’s name, constituency and phone number appearing on the screen, along with simple instructions for volunteers: what to ask and how to record the person’s views. Once the data was input and fed back to the central system, the volunteer’s screen would refresh with a new person’s details, and the canvasser unable to go back and contact the last person again, protecting their privacy.

Corbyn supporters are often portrayed as entryists sneaking into the Labour Party in the 11th hour to rig the election, but Soffa joined in 2003, back when Tony Blair was halfway between his second and third election victories. I doubt that Soffa joined because of Blair; he was in the anti-war campaign. He tells me that he joined Labour, in part, due to seeing it as, “a political vehicle that can create change in parliament.” This is someone who has campaigned for Labour at every election for over a decade, during which time there have been five different leaders, if you count Harriet Harman. In 2015, his partner, Cat Smith, was elected as MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood. It’s safe to say Soffa is committed to the Labour Party, whoever is leading it.

He currently works as Communication Manager for the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. Amongst other volunteer work, he’s Secretary of the Palestine Solidary Campaign. So perhaps it’s predictable that he supported Corbyn when it came time to vote for a new leader.

But what was surprising to Soffa was that Corbyn ran at all. For over a decade he has worked with Corbyn at various events: from constituency work to issue-led campaigning, and clearly Corbyn commands Soffa’s respect, but Soffa strikes me as a pragmatist, supporting Labour as a, “broad church,” and as a result didn’t anticipate anyone from the party’s left being guaranteed a place on the ballot, partially because potential left-wing candidates kept ruling themselves out.

At one point he considered backing one of the other candidates, if no one who shared the majority of his views emerged. Interestingly, as Soffa also works as a web designer, he was approached by the Cooper campaign to set their website up.

These skills proved invaluable when he got a text saying Jeremy was going to run, as he had the foresight to secure all the domain names before anyone else could. But even at that point Soffa says he would have, “laughed out of the room anyone who suggested there was any realistic prospect of Jeremy winning.”

But Soffa was involved, “from day one,” when the feeling was that it would be a short campaign, focused entirely on getting Corbyn on the ballot paper. What he and his team wanted was, “to give the membership a choice.” It looked hopeless at times, but even if Corbyn failed to get on the ballot, his running would force the others to consider his point of view, if only to sweep up the Corbyn’s leftover supporters.

Corbyn did get on the ballot, just, and Soffa recognised it would be a tough campaign, but nonetheless felt Corbyn’s team had a clear advantage.

“One of the differences from some of the people involved in Jeremy’s campaign,” Soffa tells me, “is people are used to doing these sorts of campaigns on a shoestring … maybe the other campaigns didn’t have that kind of experience.” He certainly didn’t see the lack of resources as hugely problematic, and even jokes that my experience in the summer was, if anything, enviable, because at least I was indoors: sheltered from the wind and rain and not in some draughty church hall.

I told Soffa that, in my view, his app created a digital infrastructure that facilitated the canvassing process to be as effective as possible. It put an end to duplicate calls; it eliminated the delay between gaining information and the data being centralised; most importantly, it enabled new volunteers, showing up at borrowed spaces like mine, to become part of a campaign with little to no previous experience, hoping that they might just help to push Corbyn over the victory line.

Soffa however, saw nationwide data every week; he was well aware of Corbyn’s overwhelming support amongst registered supporters, and as a result knew to direct efforts to canvassing the full members, something that clearly worked for Corbyn.

As for the future: the numerous elections in May 2016, Soffa will continue to do anything he can for the party. He says the massive nationwide membership increase could be utilised through an app that allows for volunteers all over the country to canvass specific target seats, rather than a safe seat they might happen to live in, something no other party can do, due to their smaller memberships.

In my view, the Canvassing App was the turning point in the grassroots effort to elect Corbyn, empowering volunteers to cut through endless media spin as soon as it emerged. I wonder if the Labour Party understands its potential to do the same now Corbyn is leader.

Photo: Getty Images

The NS Podcast #121: Girls in bands and tax credit cuts

$
0
0

The New Statesman podcast.

We talk a taxing week for the Tories and women in rock and roll. (Anoosh Chakelian, Stephen Bush, George Eaton, Kate Mossman, Stephanie Boland)

You can subscribe to the podcast through iTunes here or with this RSS feed: https://audioboo.fm/channels/1814670.rss, or listen using the player below.

Want to give us feedback on our podcast, or have an idea for something we should cover?

Visit newstatesman.com/podcast for more details and how to contact us.

Who speaks for Labour? The issue dividing Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet

$
0
0

Repeated policy divisions have left the party without a clear centre of authority. 

When Labour MPs and activists campaigned during the general election, voters repeatedly told them, “We don’t know what you stand for.” The party had assembled more policies than any opposition in recent history but lacked a unifying theme. As the former shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna later told me, “People didn’t know what we stood for because we kept changing our bloody message every bloody month.” The party veered from “responsible capitalism” to “one nation”, to “the cost-of-living crisis”, to “a better plan, a better future”.

In contrast, the Conservatives, as they never ceased to remind voters, had a “long-term economic plan”. Lynton Crosby, the Tories’ campaign manager, credited this discipline with delivering them a parliamentary majority. “Message is everything in politics,” he concluded.

When Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership, his supporters expressed the hope that he would give his party comparable definition. The left-winger triumphed on an unambiguous policy platform: he opposed austerity, military intervention, Trident renewal and tuition fees. But in the two months since then, Labour’s message has been more confused than ever. Shadow ministers have contradicted each other to the point where collective responsibility has appeared non-existent.

It is over the nuclear question that the fracture has been greatest but divisions have not been confined to this totemic issue. Andy Burnham’s warm welcome for Theresa May’s draft Investigatory Powers Bill was undermined by briefings that Corbyn took a more critical view. In a letter to May a few days later, released to the New Statesman, the shadow home secretary demanded far stronger safeguards. When Corbyn called for a review of UK air strikes against Isis in Iraq, a spokesman for Hilary Benn swiftly replied that the shadow foreign secretary continued to support the stance that the party’s MPs “overwhelmingly voted” for. The question of who speaks for Labour has become ever more insistent and the answer ever less clear.

A tipping point was reached when the shadow defence secretary, Maria Eagle, endorsed the criticism by Nicholas Houghton, the head of the armed forces, of Corbyn’s pledge never to use nuclear weapons (“It would worry me if that thought was translated into power,” Houghton said). This finally prompted the Labour leader to “lay down the law”, in the words of one shadow cabinet member, at a meeting of his team on 10 November. He told them that statements should be cleared with his office and spoke of the value of collective responsibility.

Ed Miliband also struggled to impose discipline after winning the leadership in 2010. As his victory had been achieved without the support of party members and MPs, he was treated as illegitimate by some colleagues. For Corbyn, despite his overwhelming mandate, the challenge is of a different order. Because of his rebellious record (voting against the party whip 534 times since 1997) and perceived unelectability (“The public will think Labour has given up on ever being a government again,” said Burnham before the result), his authority is far weaker.

Rather than Corbyn’s word, it is Labour’s 2015 manifesto that is treated as sacrosanct. Unless the party’s positions are formally changed though its conference and National Policy Forum, shadow cabinet members will continue to advocate stances such as Trident renewal (and some would resign rather than cease to do so).

Shortly after the Labour leader formed his first shadow cabinet, Diane Abbott complained to MPs about the lack of Corbyn supporters included. Just three, including Abbott, voted for him (the others being the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, and the shadow communities secretary, Jon Trickett). Should Corbyn’s attempt to impose discipline fail, the pressure to include more true believers will increase. One supporter told me that a reshuffle after next May’s elections was “essential”.

It is these contests – in Scotland, Wales, London and metropolitan boroughs – that all sides await as a clarifying moment. Some MPs predict that Corbyn will suffer what one describes as an “early collision with the electorate” and face a formal leadership challenge. But were he to be challenged, many believe that he would win by an even larger margin. MPs do not fear deselection by activists but nor do they entirely dismiss the possibility. At a recent Nottingham meeting of Momentum, the grass-roots group established by Corbyn supporters, the former shadow chancellor Chris Leslie was identified as a target.

The case of Andrew Fisher, the aide suspended from Labour for allegedly backing rival candidates in May, has become a proxy war. “All the MPs pushing the campaign against Fisher are people who want to get rid of Jeremy,” Ken Livingstone, a member of the National Executive Committee, which will rule on the dispute, told me. “It’s no good all this lot saying we can never win with Jeremy when they’re doing everything to undermine any chance of winning the next election by being divisive.” The support given to Fisher by Corbyn and McDonnell despite his suspension by the party’s general secretary, Iain McNicol, again prompts the question: who speaks for Labour?

For Corbyn, the task is to transcend the unending stream of process stories and define his leadership on his own terms. MPs speak with surprise of the absence of a set-piece speech distilling his mission. Corbyn can point to political victories in his opening months: the Lords defeat of tax-credit cuts, the cancellation of the government’s Saudi prison contract and the absence of a vote on military action in Syria. But he has lacked an overarching theme. Unless Labour has a message, it will never have discipline. 

Getty Images.

“I’m really, like, an expertise” The Apprentice 2015 blog: series 11, episode 6

$
0
0

The candidates have to do some weeding and put up shelves.

WARNING: This blog is for people watching The Apprentice. Contains spoilers!

Read up on episode 5 here.

It’s early morning for the candidates, but viewers will wish the sun had never risen on today the worst day of all days in the entire history of popular pseudo-reality business gameshow The Apprentice.

For as they bounce out of bed, the candidates are instructed to don high-vis jackets and steel-capped boots and to meet Alan Sugar in a builders’ yard. Yep. He went there. It was only a matter of time. Each team has to start up and run its own odd jobs business. And the team members have to carry out the odd jobs themselves. These people, who would need a toolkit to erect their own skill-sets, will have to do manual labour in return for real British pounds.

Our lord and legislator Sugar justifies this utterly pointless task by explaining: “What’s this got to do with business? I’d never ask anyone to do something that I can’t do myself.”

Fair enough. I only go to the dentist to test the veracity of their CV – I can actually source/build a specialised reclining chair, anaesthetise my face, wrench my own teeth out and prescribe myself antibiotics to prevent infection, of course. Also, thinking about it, the reason I use the Tube is simply to ascertain TFL’s standards. I could easily bore a hole 80 feet below England’s capital, electrify 250 miles of rail and ride myself around at the whim of a punishing shift pattern that I have personally implemented.

Anyway, in many ways this is the perfect Apprentice task. Because it is fertile ground for the kind of casual, easy-breezy, cool-as-a-cucumber sexism integral to the creeping horror of this programme. The contestants (with Brett leading Connexus and Elle leading Versatile) are challenged to start a “handyman business”, they try and come up with a slogan – “Don’t be shy, call your handy guys!” – and when someone on Elle’s team tentatively suggests “handyman or handywoman”, they are immediately told they’ve missed the deadline for their leaflets. The first hint of egalitarian language is lost forever.

But to work!

“I’m really, like, an expertise,” Brett (who is a builder) tells the manager of some football stands that need cleaning, and somehow wins the contract. “Are we going to have to do the job ourselves?” asks Sam, before they set to work. A question that strikes at the heart of this episode’s futility.

 Vana does some sullen pruning, after her cutting-edge market research in Dulwich (which consisted of asking bewildered locals: “Do you think this neighbourhood is all about gardening?”)

Mergim unsurprisingly has trouble colouring inside the lines when painting a shop front, losing his team money. He also bashes a hole into the wall of a shop when trying to fix their shelves. “Are they meant to lean to one side or are they meant to stay straight?” he asks the shop owner.

Elle, who runs a construction company, realises that putting people with no experience of handywork in charge isn’t a good idea, and so instructs plumber Joseph to run a construction job they land with an East End theatre.

But such sensible delegation is apparently a sackable offence, so Elle is the first to go when the candidates return to the boardroom and Versatile loses – even before the stage when three people are in the firing line.

This means that, following the ancient, binding constitution of The Apprentice zealously upheld by bored television producers, sub-team leader Mergim is interim project manager. The Harriet Harman of the piece. He has to choose who to bring back into the boardroom.

But it’s a dramatic twist that makes no difference whatsoever, because refugee from Kosovo Mergim is swiftly fired, as is Jamaican boutique owner April who also made some irrelevant DIY-based mistakes. Which means the one white male in the line-up, David, is saved. Order is restored.

Candidates to watch:

Vana

An expert in expectations management.

Brett

The master of management gobbledygook.

Richard

Still awful.

I'll be blogging The Apprentice each week. Click here for the previous episode blog. The Apprentice airs weekly at 9pm, Wednesday night on BBC One.

All photos: BBC

No wonder “Generation K” loves The Hunger Games – they can't rely on grown-ups either

$
0
0

Today's teenage readers don't trust authority or institutions and why should they? Adults have made an Orwellian nightmare of half of the world and set fire to the rest.

The generation reaching adulthood in the latter part of this decade has not yet been named. The reason for this may well be superstition. First, we had Generation X, the anhedonic children of the 1980s and 1990s; then there was Generation Y, the anxious, driven millennials who grew up just in time to inherit the financial crisis. What can today’s teenagers call themselves that doesn’t sound apocalyptic? Where else is there for them to go but the end of the alphabet? It’s a little too prophetic for comfort, because if ever there was a cohort born to save the world or die trying, it’s these kids. No wonder they all love The Hunger Games.

Most teenagers I know spend a frightening amount of time reading dystopian fiction, when they are not half killing themselves trying to get into universities that they know are no longer a guarantee of employment. Suzanne Collins’s dark trilogy, which tells the story of a teenage girl forced by a decadent, repressive state into a televised fight to the death with other working-class young people, has sold more than 65 million copies worldwide. It has become the defining mythos for this generation in the way that the Harry Potter books were for millennials. In a recent study, the economist Noreena Hertz suggested naming the young people born after 1995 “Generation K”, after the traumatised, tough-as-nails protagonist of The Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen. The logic is sound. The teenagers whom Hertz interviewed were beset by anxieties, distrusted authority and anticipated lives of struggle in a dangerous, uncertain world.

Every exciting, well-told adventure tale is a comfort to lonely children but some stories are much more than that. When I was at school, Harry Potter and his friends were more important than the Greek pantheon. Harry, Ron and Hermione spoke to the values of my millennial cohort, who grew up convinced that if we were talented and worked hard, we would go to the equivalent of wizard school and lead magical lives in which good would ultimately prevail.

We were wrong. Today’s young people have no such faith in the system. Not every­one gets a happy ending in The Hunger Games. The final instalment of the film adaptations of the books, which have smashed box-office records and made a superstar of Jennifer Lawrence, opens on 19 November. There is even a theme park planned, which seems rather redundant, as young people looking for the full Hunger Games experience – fighting to survive by stepping on the backs of other young people in an opulent, degenerate megacity – might as well try to get a graduate job in London.

Generational politics can obscure as much as they reveal. All of us, however, are marked by the collective political and cultural realities of the time when we grew up. The generation born after the mid-1990s is about to reach adulthood in a dark and threatening world, a world of surveillance and police repression, of financial uncertainty and environmental crisis, of exploitation at work and abuse on the internet. It will have to navigate this bleak future without the soothing coverlet of late-capitalist naivety that carried millennials through school and university until it was cruelly snatched away by the financial crisis in 2008. That was the year The Hunger Games was first published. Sometimes, the right story arrives at the right time.

The “young adult” section of every bookshop is now flooded with dystopian titles, from Veronica Roth’s Divergent series to Louise O’Neill’s Only Ever Yours, which envisions a future in which women are trained from birth to be perfect wives and handmaidens, rather like a horror-movie remix of Teen Vogue. The publishing industry prefers to follow trends rather than set them but the inexhaustible hunger of Generation K for dystopian stories is partly a search for answers to questions that aren’t being addressed at home or at school, such as: “How will I survive when the world I know collapses?” and “How will I protect my family?”

Perhaps the biggest difference between the Potter universe and today’s dystopian stories lies in how the young protagonists relate to authority. Harry Potter and his friends are surrounded by sympathetic grown-ups, some of them wise, some of them kindly and some of them able to transform into furry animals. Sometimes authority goes wrong – such as when the hateful Dolores Umbridge takes over Hogwarts – but the problem is never with the system.

In The Hunger Games, the few adults who can be trusted have a tendency to be murdered by the state. Katniss cannot rely on any grown-up for help: not her drunken, shambolic mentor, not her traumatised mother and certainly not the agents of the Capitol, who are out to exploit her for their own ends. That mistrust tallies with the attitudes of today’s teenage readers, according to Hertz. They do not trust authority or institutions and why should they? Adults have made an Orwellian nightmare of half of the world and set fire to the rest. They might mean well but ultimately they do not have your best interests at heart, so it is up to you and your friends to keep fighting. This isn’t Hogwarts. You’ve got responsibilities and you’ll have to grow up fast.

If the moral of Harry Potter is that good will ultimately triumph, the message of The Hunger Games is that we are all doomed, adults can’t be trusted and all you can do is screw up your courage, gather your weapons and fight to survive, even if “the odds are never in our favour”. Today’s teenagers are braver, better connected and less naive than any generation in living memory and it is up to the rest of us to stand behind them. Spoiler alert: there could yet be a happy ending, as long as adults remember, like Katniss, that the young are “more than just a piece in their Games”. 

Kendra Miller/Flickr

Time to swot up on chronic fatigue

$
0
0

Future general practitioners need to be made aware that “psychosomatic” should not be the default suspicion.

Around 250,000 people in the UK suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). The symptoms include debilitating tiredness, pains, dizziness, insomnia and depression. The standard recommended treatment has three strands: cognitive behavioural therapy, an exercise programme (“graded exercise therapy”) and medication that counters some of the pain, nausea, sleeping problems and other symptoms.

That prescription has been reinforced by a review published in the journal Lancet Psychiatry, which followed a group of sufferers and concluded that cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy are better than “specialised medical care”.

The ME Association, however, responded with a detailed criticism of the study. It complains that cognitive behavioural therapy treatment attaches a label that marks CFS as a psychological disease while doing little good. Moreover, graded exercise therapy makes a significant proportion of people worse, it argued, and the hypothesis that those with CFS respond to the therapy because they are inactive and deconditioned “is no longer tenable”. The association pointed to research showing that sufferers have “significant abnormalities in the muscle, brain and immune system”, which are likely to contribute to CFS symptoms and induce fatigue in those compelled, against their inclination, to exercise as part of their treatment.

There is something to these objections. In 2011, researchers in Norway announced an accidental discovery: an anti-cancer drug called Rituximab had eased a cancer patient’s CFS symptoms.

A larger follow-up study published in July this year found that the initial discovery had been no fluke. Of the 29 people in the trial, 18 experienced significant relief from CFS symptoms, with
11 of them still feeling good after three years and some still in remission, with no symptoms, after five. Now, 150 people are taking part in a new study on the effects of Rituximab on CFS. The drug destroys the immune system’s white blood cells; these cells may have been playing a role in creating CFS symptoms.

Things may be about to improve for sufferers. The US National Institutes of Health announced that it has been spending too little on the disease and is planning a study on the possible role of infection in triggering CFS. Oversight of CFS studies has been moved from the Office of Research on Women’s Health to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. In other words, it is being taken seriously.

Educating future doctors about CFS would also help. According to a study into medical students’ attitudes to the syndrome, published by researchers at the University of Manchester, UK students acquire their knowledge “largely from informal sources” and they “expressed difficulty understanding chronic fatigue syndrome within a traditional biomedical framework”. Many didn’t see how it was a medical problem – and some considered sufferers as malingerers or time-wasters.

Future general practitioners need to be made aware that “psychosomatic” should not be the default suspicion. A compromised immune system now looks like a reasonable diagnosis. Although treatments are not yet ready, at least sufferers will not be cajoled on to therapies that might prove problematic. Remember: “First, do no harm.” 

Carl Court/Getty Images

Casualties of war in the world’s newest country

$
0
0

In the years since the end of the north-south war in 2005 a generation of South Sudanese had begun to grow up not knowing fighting. Now that is ended.

There were no wounds on Nyachan’s body. She demonstrated how she was tied up – arms pulled back, elbows bent sharply towards her spine – but the rope marks had faded. Government soldiers had abducted Nyachan from her village in Unity State in South Sudan in mid-April and marched her to a military camp. For two months she was held captive: forced to work by day, bound and raped by night. Eventually Nyachan (not her real name) escaped on foot to a UN base outside the state capital, Bentiu, where she was reunited with her five children, and where we met a couple of months later.

Nyachan’s story seemed extreme at first, but later commonplace. Every woman and girl I spoke with in Bentiu, where 120,000 displaced people were gathered, had her own subtly different horror story, but there were common threads. Many, like Nyachan, had been abducted, tied up and gang-raped over days or months in camps run by government soldiers and their allied militias. The discovery of this particular war crime was new, but already human rights investigators had documented appalling atrocities – children, especially boys, mutilated and killed; people burned alive in their huts; elderly women hanged from trees – during a government offensive this year.

How did South Sudan come to this, just four years after independence from Sudan to the north? Something had always unified South Sudan, whether the decades-long civil war against the common enemy in Khartoum, or the shared goal of secession and self-rule that followed a 2005 peace deal. But independence in July 2011 unchained South Sudan’s political elite. On the night of 15 December 2013 President Salva Kiir, a member of the Dinka ethnic group, and his sacked deputy Riek Machar, a Nuer, went to war. It began in the capital, Juba, and quickly spread as the two men rallied their mostly tribal supporters to the cause of winning power.

As in other countries where armed liberation movements have become governments, control of the ruling party equals control of the state, its wealth and patronage. The rivalry between Kiir and Machar in the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement dates back to the civil war with the north. The unschooled Kiir is a wily bush-war tactician; Machar – with his Bradford University PhD – a slippery operator. Both are veterans of conflict, their actions freighted with historical violence and resentment. Since the resumption of war, tens of thousands have been killed and more than 2.3 million forced from their homes. Some 4.6 million need food aid.

The African Union convened a commission of inquiry into abuses committed in the early stages of the war, but then buried its findings. Finally published last week, the report mentioned massacres and mass graves, specially trained tribal militias, deliberate attacks on civilians, forced cannibalism, rape and mutilation. But a call for Kiir and Machar to be barred from politics, contained in a previous leaked version of the report, was dropped. A wobbly peace deal brokered by regional states in August includes the creation of a “hybrid” war crimes court – a model that has proved effective in the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone – but leaves Kiir as president and reinstals Machar as deputy.

The starkest division in the country is between Dinkas and Nuers, but the splits are multilayered and there have been atrocities on all sides. In Unity State it is a Bul-Nuer militia, allied to the government and backed by the army, that is accused of perpetrating the worst of the crimes against civilians who, because of their membership of a different Nuer clan, were regarded as rebels.

One woman I met – who had disguised her sons, aged five and two, as girls so they would not be killed on the walk to safety at the UN base – did not hide her hatred of the Bul-Nuer. “They are worried,” she said. “They know all the Nuers in all the counties of Unity State will come together and want revenge for what they did.”

In the years since the end of the north-south war in 2005 a generation of South Sudanese had begun to grow up not knowing fighting – and now that is ended. The damage done by this conflict may echo through the generations. That, at least, is what Zacharia Toulgol fears. I found the father-of-ten living with his family in an abandoned shop in the overgrown town centre of Bentiu. They, too, had fled their home village. He squatted on an upturned bucket, in a striped jalabiya and tracksuit pants. Pasted to the surgical-green metal door behind him was a faded election poster that read, “We Vote For Peace”.

“I voted for separation. Now it’s like I voted to suffer for the rest of my life,” Toulgol said.

TONY KARUMBA/AFP/Getty Images

The Returning Officer: Suffragettes II

$
0
0

The Dublin-born Norah Dacre Fox emigrated to England in 1891.

The Dublin-born Norah Dacre Fox emigrated to England in 1891. She became general secretary of the WSPU in 1913 and was imprisoned several times, going on hunger strike at Holloway Prison. On the outbreak of war, she helped with recruitment drives. In 1915, Dacre Fox, along with Emmeline Pankhurst and others, reportedly descended into a mine in Glamorgan and worked at the coal face.

She stood as an independent at Richmond, Surrey, in 1918 and came second. The Yorkshire Post described her as an “anti-alien speaker with a weakness for seeing ‘the hidden hand’”. She joined the British Union of Fascists in 1934, was selected as its candidate for Northampton in 1936 and returned to Holloway Prison in 1940. l

Stephen Brasher

Wikimedia

Tony Blair’s not-so-smoking gun, Lord Lucan’s “left-wing” parents and Bond’s “moderate violence”

$
0
0

Bond's violence is only "moderate"? Yes, I know there’s eye-gouging in King Lear but at least you get great poetry with it.

The financial troubles of Four Seasons Health Care, the country’s biggest care-home operator, presents Labour with an opportunity it should not miss. Thanks to a decline in local authority fees – largely attributable to George Osborne’s public spending cuts – the care industry, according to some commentators, faces as big a crisis as steel, with one in two residential homes at risk of closure. The British, generally anxious to keep old folk out of sight and out of mind, are nevertheless incurably sentimental about them. If they were turned out on the streets, the government wouldn’t last a fortnight.

No doubt the industry’s lobbyists exaggerate the crisis. That shouldn’t stop Labour addressing the question. Old people, it is said, now live in unprecedented luxury, enjoying triple-locked state pensions that guarantee them, for the foreseeable future, bigger annual rises than everybody else gets. They are therefore the Tories’ most reliable supporters, with 47 per cent backing David Cameron in this year’s election, against 23 per cent for Ed Miliband.

But as they luxuriate on round-the-world cruises, a great fear preoccupies most old people: what happens if they need care, either at home or in a residential institution? Although the government has set a £72,000 cap on what people need to pay themselves, it doesn’t take effect until 2020 and it doesn’t mean you won’t in practice pay more.

This is Labour’s great opportunity to win over millions of over-65s without whom the party cannot win in 2020. Its big idea should be a National Care Service, on the lines of the NHS, wholly free at the point of use, wherever and whenever needed. It should be funded not from general taxation but from a rebranded and extended inheritance tax.

Inheritance tax is wildly unpopular even among those whose estates won’t be liable – which means the vast majority – and Osborne has all but abolished it. Under my proposal, more estates would have to contribute and those that now contribute would pay at a higher rate. But if used specifically to guarantee good-quality care and give old people peace of mind, it would be viewed quite differently, though I grant you it needs the best PR and marketing (over to you, Seumas Milne). It is hard to imagine anything more socialist: pooling collective resources to meet an uninsurable risk. Will Jeremy Corbyn dare?

 

A damp squib burn order

A smoking gun at last? According to the Mail on Sunday, Labour ministers were told in 2003 to “burn” the 13-page legal opinion given by the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, that invading Iraq would be illegal. Alas, it turns out that only one minister, then defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, received the order. It came to him second-hand and, according to an unnamed source, “he did not regard it as an instruction to be followed”. Perhaps I am being over-literal but that, to my way of thinking, means it wasn’t an order.

Soon after his first opinion, Goldsmith, as we now know, issued a second, “clearer” one-page opinion, saying war was perfectly acceptable. What we need is a recording of Tony Blair saying to him: “Listen, sunshine, give me something saying I can nuke those Iraqis whenever I feel like it or you’ll be at the bottom of the Thames tomorrow morning in lead boots.” Until they have such a thing, newspapers should remain silent.

 

Bond v Lear

Given that I usually avoid anything described as an “action movie”, and haven’t watched a James Bond film in years, I am probably a poor judge of these things. But I was surprised that the latest Bond film, Spectre– which, anxious to stay abreast of mass-market cultural offerings, I recently watched – is officially categorised as containing only “moderate violence”. Since it involves exploding buildings (with people inside them), several shootings, fisticuffs every few minutes, eye-gouging and torture, I shudder to think what would be labelled “immoderate”. People who join Isis and other Islamist groups are accused of an obsession with violence. But the proverbial Martian, coming upon a Bond film and its box-office success, might conclude that such an obsession is not primarily a Muslim problem. And, yes, I know there’s eye-gouging in King Lear but at least you get great poetry with it.

 

Done scrumming

I am about to contradict myself but, to borrow from Walt Whitman, a weekly columnist must contain multitudes. Having whinged about violence in the cinema, I confess to being an eager follower of rugby union; the only sport, I believe, that finds it necessary to lay down specific penalties (usually suspension for a few matches) against eye-gouging. My enthusiasm for the game dates from childhood when even the top English clubs were watched by no more than 2,000 and all players were amateurs (theoretically, at any rate).

I always liked rugby’s status as a minority sport, free from the commercialised glamour and saturation media coverage of football. Now, following the success of the World Cup – of which, turned off by the hype and glitz, I watched relatively little – I feel the game is being stolen from me. Worst of all was the appearance at the New Zealand-Australia final of Rupert Murdoch with his latest squeeze, Jerry Hall. I don’t want to be a fan of anything that Murdoch’s a fan of.

 

Lucky, Lucan

In a long article for the Sunday Times, written on the flimsy pretext that a court was due to make Lord Lucan’s death official, Ivan Fallon, the paper’s former deputy editor, purports to cast fresh light on the disappeared earl’s reckless and ultimately murderous behaviour. “His parents,” Fallon writes without further elaboration, “had been strange, left-wing political activists.”

I have spent some time pondering the significance of that sentence and particularly the placing of the comma. 

Spectre screengrab

The legend of Sonny Bill

$
0
0

Sonny Bill Williams’s contributions outside of matches are even more memorable than his playing.

Cut-throat professional sport is supposed to have little room for individualism. Nobody told Sonny Bill Williams, the New Zealand centre who has made a career out of defying convention.

Moments after the All Blacks won the Rugby World Cup, Charlie Line, a 14-year-old boy, leaped over the barriers at Twickenham to join the celebration on the pitch. He was promptly floored by a steward’s rugby tackle. Enter Williams, a man whose physique stands out even by comparison with team-mates. First, he lifted Line from the ground, taking him away from the steward. Then, as he took the boy back towards his mother, Williams draped his newly acquired World Cup winner’s medal around Line’s head and gave him a hug.

Williams claimed that any of his team-mates would have done the same. Yet somehow it was apt that he was the man who made a young boy’s day.

Born into a working-class family in Auckland (Williams’s father is Samoan), the self-confessed “small, skinny white kid” grew into a rugby league prodigy. At the age of 18, he debuted for the Bulldogs in Sydney, becoming the youngest player to sign a professional contract with the club. The following year, he became the youngest player to play an Anzac Test for New Zealand. He was also becoming one of the sport’s wild children, earning a ban for drink-driving and being caught urinating in public and in a notorious “toilet tryst”.

Still, rugby union took heed of his talent. Like many of the best league players, Williams switched codes to union when he signed for the French club Toulon in 2008, though only after the Bulldogs had accused him of breaking a five-year contract. The move to France was the prelude to an even more significant conversion. Williams befriended a Tunisian family and subsequently embraced Islam, which he credits with bringing him calm and contentment. When he made his international rugby union Test debut in 2010, Williams was the first Muslim to represent the All Blacks. A year later, he had his first World Cup medal.

Williams’s speed, agility, strength and, above all, his wonderful handling skills make him equally suited to rugby league and rugby union. He returned to league in 2013 and promptly helped New Zealand to the final of the World Cup and was named the rugby league international player of the year. In 2014, he switched codes again and was immediately recalled to the All Blacks, scoring two tries and winning the man of the match award in his first game back.

All the while, Williams had a sideline in a third sport: boxing. Since making his professional debut in 2009, Williams has won all seven of his fights – three of them knockouts – but was stripped of two titles because he was too busy with his rugby commitments to accept any challenges to the ring. “Every sport has helped me excel in another,” he has said. “Boxing has given me the mental strength to know that I can face anything on the field.”

His spirit remains restless. After the Rugby World Cup, he will take a break from union to take up rugby sevens full-time, in an attempt to be selected for New Zealand’s sevens squad for the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio. The All Blacks will miss him. Though he was mainly used as a substitute, Williams played his part in their World Cup triumph, transforming a match against Argentina with his powerful running, scoring a try against Tonga and then playing in the second half of the final against Australia.

Yet Sonny Bill Williams’s contributions outside of the matches were even more memorable. Before the World Cup semi-final against South Africa, he offered two of his tickets to Syrian refugees. Then, after the All Blacks had triumphed in the close game, Williams took the time to console the distraught young Springbok centre Jesse Kriel.

It’s just as well, then, that World Rugby broke with convention and awarded Williams a second World Cup medal to replace the one that he gave away. 

FACUNDO ARRIZABALAGA/EPA
Viewing all 19496 articles
Browse latest View live