The Bubble Columns: Are Miniskirts Anti-Social?

Originally published online in The Bubble Columns, available here.

In Britain, anti-social behaviour is the word on everybody’s lips. Whether you’re an elderly person raving for the return of national service, a young person wearing a hoodie and wondering why the security guards have such suspicious looks on their faces, or a politician pretending that you actually know what to do about the problem, the chances are that you’re somehow caught up in the national debate about how to deal with it. Still, it could be worse – you could live in Italy.

New powers handed down by Silvio Berlusconi’s government to combat what is deemed to be anti-social behaviour are being used in the seaside city of Castellammare di Stabia to ban revealing clothing, from miniskirts to low-cut jeans. Fantastically named mayor Luigi Bobbio claims that his policy is designed to “restore urban decorum and facilitate better civil co-existence”, enforcing what he perceives as standards of public decency across the city. Offenders could face fines between 25 and 500 euros.

This raises the question: exactly what is so anti-social about a miniskirt? If I can see what the wearer had for breakfast, chances are I’ll cringe on their behalf, but that’s just because it doesn’t look good. That said, I do appreciate that skimpy outfits may engender disapproval from certain people, but so does saying something they disagree with. They’re just different forms of expression, and just as the disapproval of others does not detract from your right to say something, nor does it detract from your right to wear something (even if you are Lady Gaga). And this is coming from someone who literally lives in jeans.

Issues of anti-social behaviour are apparently not the only ones behind this policy: a local parish priest has supported the plans, suggesting that they would also help fight the rise in sexual harassment. To think, here I was, “going all feminist” and thinking that was caused by outdated attitudes regarding the objectification of the opposite sex. Clearly, they all just need to stop turning their harassers on – and they say politics never solves anything.

Beyond this instance, though, there’s a deeper problem about the interpretation of the law. Across Italy other local authorities have used these powers to ban wooden clogs, feeding stray cats, kissing in cars, sandcastles and the use of lawnmowers at weekends, none of which exactly strike me as being anti-social. Granted, wearing wooden clogs in public will probably prevent people wanting to socialise with you, but surely the only authorities who need to worry are the fashion police? I know from experience that the noise of someone mowing the lawn outside almost perfectly blocks out the sound of Songs of Praise on a Sunday afternoon – that sort of kindness deserves a medal, not prosecution.

It seems to me that decisions are being taken which fit the specifics, but go against the whole spirit and intention of the law – unless, of course, you’re planning on hiding some sort of weapon under your bucket, or beating someone with your spade. Given Italy’s economic ills and numerous other problems, some authorities seem to have rather unusual priorities.

Banning revealing clothing is far from the worst thing authorities can do, but it does seem a rather unnecessary step in the fight against anti-social behaviour. Of course, the greatest irony is that the power to do so was handed down from Silvio Berlusconi, a man whose reputation suggests that he won’t be jumping for joy about it himself. In any case, we’ll soon find out how many people heed the ban – the fines can always go towards repairing the economy…

The Bubble Columns- President Cowboy

Originally published online in The Bubble Columns, available here.

You may not have heard of Robert Burck. You may not care about his politics. But if you’ve been to New York, you may know him as the Naked Cowboy. The busker has been entertaining the masses with the strategic aid of Y-fronts, Stetson and guitar long enough to be part of the city’s furniture- but it would appear he has aspirations to more than just his local fame. He’s standing for office.

Yes, you read that correctly. Burck has cut his hair and not only dressed but suited up to announce his intention to run for President. He plans to run as a candidate for staunchly conservative, anti-establishment activists the Tea Party. He also insists there will be nothing “cowboy” about his policies. And no, I did not make that up.

Despite such questions as “Are you wearing a codpiece?” and numerous enquiries as to the location of his usual Y-fronts, Burck insisted that there was “no time for games” when announcing his plans at a news conference in New York. Apparently, "America is rapidly transforming into a government-run enterprise… American politicians are selling out America and its most cherished institution, that being capitalism." His policies, he also declared, will include the closure of America’s borders, the abolition of trade unions for government workers and compulsory drug tests for welfare claimants. Human rights, it would appear, he’ll worry about later.

It makes sense that economic views like his would align with the Tea Party- a loose group of right-wing activists formed amid a swell of protest at government bail-outs of failing companies such as banks and insurers, objecting to what they perceive as the erosion of capitalist society (which is, of course, perfect, and never did anyone any harm). Most Republicans, they feel, have become too moderate. Though the Tea Party is steadfastly focussed on economic policy, many members are deeply socially conservative too, and Burck’s ideology is likely to appeal in this regard as well.

What’s more, there’s a strong desire within the group to bring fresh blood into politics and throw out many of the old, established faces. For all his attempts to get serious, someone known as being so different to the mostly sombre, complacent and indeed clothed past inhabitants of the White House appeals to the same vein of rebellion that made Brits get Killing In The Name to Christmas number 1 (what was that about doing what they told you, again?)

Living in the country which produced the Monster Raving Loony Party, bizarre politics is a part of life. I’m endlessly entertained by Boris Johnson. America’s political celebrity culture is far more pronounced than Britain’s, but I didn’t even lose the will to live when Paris Hilton attempted to stand for President (though if I were American, that may not have been the case). Burck’s career change is a classic case of what I termed in last week’s column the “Schwarzenegger effect”: a (sort of) celebrity using his (sort of) fame to propel him to (unlikely) political success. He’s sort of like a cross between the bloke with the accordion on Framwellgate Bridge and Kilroy, but with a better tan.

The Naked Cowboy has clearly harboured political aspirations for a while- he announced plans to run for Mayor of New York before dropping out of the race in 2009. Maybe he thought about the incumbent Michael Bloomberg and decided that that town wasn’t big enough for the both of them. In any case, it will be interesting to see how he does in his campaign- though Obama, despite his current problems, is still looking good for a second term, this is the nation that voted George Dubya Bush into office (well, debatably- right, Florida?), and the Killing in the Name effect can be powerful. He might not stroll into Washington, but he may do better than we expect.

The Bubble Columns: The Cult of Putin

Orignially published on my column in The Bubble, available here.


My favourite piece of news this week may not have been the most publicised, but it was definitely among the strangest. A group of journalism students at Moscow State University, in praise of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on his 58^th birthday, have produced an erotic calendar featuring female students. Positioned next to such captions as “You put out forest fires, but I’m still burning” (sexy, I know), the girls are pouting and wearing lingerie in the “Vladimir Vladimirovich, we love you” calendar which will apparently be sold in Moscow supermarkets.

I admit from the outset that I’m no expert on Russian politics, but I know that it can seem weird at the best of times. Putin has published his own calendars featuring his shirtless self on horseback, at the controls of a helicopter, and in other generally manly poses, and it’s well known that he is still unbelievably popular. After his two terms as President, under Russian law he could not stand for a third - so he ran for Prime Minister, won by a good margin, and has proceeded to act as the power behind the presidency ever since. Since he’s eligible to run for President again in 2012, Miss February’s (supposedly) suggestive slogan “How about a third time?” shows that he’ll definitely get at least one vote.

Can you imagine a bunch of Labour activists doing this for Gordon Brown? “How about another term, but this time we vote for you?”  Russia appears to have allowed Putin to put himself on a pedestal right at the pinnacle of celebrity culture. The question is, whether it’s his political status that keeps him famous, or his fame that keeps him so popular in politics (affectionately known as the Schwarzenegger effect).  The former is possible - he has a reputation for strength and resilience and plays on nationalist tendencies effectively, holding his own against Europe and the USA. If the latter is true, he’s approximately a sex-tape away from world domination. It’s probably a mixture of the two, but if the next suspect link your mate sends you is entitled “One Night in Vladimir” you should be very worried.

Less surprising was the response to the calendar - in fact, I’m surprised it wasn’t produced first: another group of female students have made a calendar of their own. “Vladimir Vladimirovich, we have some questions…” instead features girls posing with tape over their mouths in protest at the alleged silencing of political dissidents. Captions included “Who killed Anna Politkovskaya?” referring to the unexplained death of the journalist, one of the Kremlin’s loudest critics, four years ago. Not quite as good a present for poor Vladimir, but probably quite important.

It’s easy to laugh so much at Putin’s idolisation that we forget the dissent he faces. Alleged political assassinations, illegal detention and the regime of a former KGB man do seem to fit unsettlingly together. The bizarre 2006 murder by radiation poisoning (of all things?) of Alexander Litvinenko in London  is one of many controversies which has refused to fade away - especially since Litvinenko had sought asylum in Britain, after accusing his superiors in the secret service of such murders; significantly, he had named Putin himself as having ordered Politkovskaya’s death. At least Paris Hilton’s biggest crime was only House of Wax.

It would seem that he has a lot to answer for, but it's doubtful he plans to do so. In the meantime, challenging him and the authorities still seems a risky business in Russia, and it’s quite alarming that one man can have such a hold on power, both within the political regime and informally through the media. The calendar war this week is part of a broader propaganda war which, though existing in and across every political arena, seems heightened around this one man.

The first part of this ‘take a random news story and ramble about it’ column, then, leaves me scratching my head at political celebrity and Putin’s grip on the Russian mind. Happy birthday, Mr Putin. Enjoy your calendar. But a few people might like some answers.

Palatinate Sport: Summer Tennis Despair

Originally published in Palatinate Sport, Issue 720 (October 5th 2010).

October. It’s a depressing month. It’s cold and damp, but more importantly, even leaves would rather jump to their deaths from the trees than look back on a summer of disappointing British tennis.

We’ve had Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open, and Andy Murray, the sole British player in the world rankings, has won none of them. He has lost in a fourth round, semi-final and third round respectively this year, despite reaching the final of the Australian Open in January. Hardly Mr Consistency- his sole title of the year may have come from an impressive display at the Toronto Masters in August, but he failed to convert this into success on other hard courts, losing in the quarter-finals of Cincinnati and then embarrassingly early at the US Open.

While it’s fair to say that Murray underperforms in tour tournaments, perhaps his slam record is less surprising. Roland Garros and the US saw early defeats, but against Thomas Berdych and Stanislas Wawrinka respectively- both are formidable players whose rankings (17 and 27) do not reflect the form they can sometimes produce. Wawrinka in particular played one of the best matches of his career. Considering Rafael Nadal’s performance at Wimbledon, it’s hardly shocking that he could beat Murray in a semi.

But it’s not just the competition to blame. Murray’s form can drop at key moments and he can look lethargic on court. He lacked some of the flair during the Wawrinka match that we saw from him in Sydney and Toronto, and grumbled and moaned as he lost to Berdych. John Lloyd, Britain’s Davis Cup coach and former British number one, has recently gone on record saying that he believes Murray will need to change his psychological approach if he is to win the majors of which he is capable. It certainly appears that, for all the epic five-setters we’ve seen him come through, he can give up in the face of defeat, sealing his own fate; in a game which demands as much mental stamina as tennis, that’s hardly helpful.

He’s far from a hopeless case. He is ranked 4 in the world, still only 23 years old, in impressive physical shape and facing the prospect of a new coach to help him reassess his game. He has 15 tour singles titles and has been in two grand slam finals. That said, Murray still has far to go before he reaches the dizzying heights that Brits dream of- and if he wants to become world number one, chances are he’ll have to go through Roger Federer, Nadal and even Novak Djokovic first. He’s beaten all of them at least once, and Federer’s grip on supremacy has loosened of late, but their dominance as the top three in the men’s game since the Dark Ages will not be broken easily.

Still, there’s another question to raise here. Britain only seems to produce one good player at a time. The British men’s number two is Alex Bogdanovic, sitting pretty at the time of writing at number 220 in the world. Why is Murray our only hope?

The answer would appear to be in his background. Like Tim Henman before him, he comes from a sporting family; though Henman’s upbringing was considerably more privileged, Murray’s parents could send him away to train in Barcelona at the age of 15. Tennis still seems to be the reserve of the wealthy in Britain, largely because of vast under-investment over the years. The vast majority of investment in British sport goes either on more mainstream sports (football, rugby, even cricket) or potential Olympic hopefuls, while not enough is being done to find and develop young talent. While this has begun to improve (Britain boasts some promising juniors such as Laura Robson), the crucial stage lies in transferring junior successes into future adult champions. Time will tell whether we can get this right. Until we do, no amount of strawberries and cream can change the fact that Britain deserves all the yearly disappointment it gets.

The Bubble Politics: "Red Ed" and New Labour

Originally published on The Bubble Politics, 1st October 2010, available here.

Those of you who have not been hiding under rocks all summer may have noticed that the Labour party has been busy. Nursing their wounds after losing the election and vigorously opposing many of the coalition’s proposed cuts, they’ve also been weighing up the contenders to succeed Gordon Brown.

What has felt like an interminable process of hustings and campaigning across the country has seen the five contenders not so much battling for the leadership as politely discussing their differences: it’s been remarkably civil, but very healthy for the party as a whole. The last time there was a contest was in 1994, when Tony Blair took over after the death of John Smith- and even this was supposedly impacted by a secret deal between he and Gordon Brown, meaning the latter would not stand in the way of the former. An open, free contest, allowing a frank post-mortem after the effective collapse of New Labour, was exactly what was needed. New leadership couldn’t hurt either.

Each of the competitors has managed to differentiate themselves from both the former regime and their competitors. For long-serving back-bencher Diane Abbott, though, this was hardly a challenge. Poetic as it is that Britain’s first black, female MP should have the chance to become party leader 23 years later, she wouldn’t have secured enough nominations to stand but for a last minute endorsement from David Miliband, and didn’t even win the vote in her own Constituency Labour Party. She was eliminated in the first round of voting with just 7.42% of the vote.

Then again, as many commentators have pointed out, victory was never the point of her campaign: well-known to be on the left of the party and having opposed the Iraq war among other New Labour policies, she has provided a foil to the major contenders. Detached enough from the Blair and Brown regimes to criticise from a position of relative safety, she has done exactly that- pointing out, amidst other issues, that the people surrounding her were all criticising a government they were in- and from the point of view of many grassroots activists, hers was a voice that needed to be heard.

Next in the vote came Andy Burnham, who became Shadow Health Secretary after taking that brief in government. Originally from Liverpool, Burnham has often played up his ‘working class’ roots in his condemnation of Conservative policies, and has been attending Labour party meetings since before he was old enough to join. His commitment to the party is well-known, but he is still relatively new to politics, having only entered the Cabinet during Brown’s tenure. His comparative inexperience and less established public persona went against him in this election, but it’s also reasonable to suggest that he had little chance in a contest dominated in both the party’s mind and the media by the political heavyweights, the brothers Miliband and Ed Balls.

Shadow Education Secretary Balls was for some time considered a genuine contender in the contest, and always looked fairly strong in hustings. His long-time allegiance to Gordon Brown is well documented; he was Brown’s chief economic adviser for 10 years, which ensured him speedy promotion to the Cabinet just two years after he became an MP in 2005. However, this would also appear to have been a double-edged sword- it was easy to portray him as a candidate offering no real change, and he has earned himself much of the opposition that was afforded to Brown by certain factions within the party. It would seem that, after the pain of the end of Brown’s premiership, large sections of the party preferred one of the more Blair-like Milibands.

David (the elder one, just in case) was the front runner from the moment Brown announced his resignation, having almost stood against him in 2007: a known Blairite, leading light of the Cabinet during Labour’s later years, and former (now Shadow) Foreign Secretary, who made clear his intention to claim the centre ground from the beginning. With the Liberal Democrats in coalition with the Conservatives, he claimed, Labour could become “a great unifying force” for the centre-left- a strategy which would also see Labour pick up the votes of disenchanted liberals to boost their support at the next election. Significantly, he is the candidate most closely associated with New Labour and has warned against the party reverting to its left-wing “comfort zone”.

Ed, meanwhile, has done the opposite, cautioning against a return to the “New Labour comfort zone”. His decision to stand against his older brother surprised some at the start of his campaign, despite his established support. The biggest boost to his campaign, however, came from trade unions- all three of the major unions recommended him, and most of the smaller ones, which significantly detracted from the support some unions were expected to extend to Balls and Burnham. He performed impressively in hustings, and is seen as slightly more left-wing than his brother. The nickname “Red Ed” has sprung up around this, although it would be a stretch to see him, and his intention to defend the “squeezed middle” class ,as decisively socialist- in fact, his father, the late Marxist philosopher Ralph, would probably see both of his sons as ‘sell-outs’.

So, how do we explain Ed’s victory? The answer lies in the complex voting system used to determine the outcome, where MPs, party members and union members each constitute a third of the vote, and second, third and fourth preferences are accounted for. Looking at the breakdown of each round of voting, Ed’s union support is obvious, though David polled higher amongst party members and MPs. Moreover, in three of the four rounds David was slightly ahead.

 However, most next preferences among Abbott’s voters went to Balls and Burnham.  Burnham’s voters were fairly equally divided, giving roughly an extra 3% to Balls and 4% to each Miliband, but more of Balls’ voters went for Ed (boosting his total by 9.4%) than David (about 6%). This suggests that Ed picked up more next preferences from people who had voted for more strongly socialist candidates than David. The numbers imply that Ed’s success stems from occupying a strange left-of-centre middle ground- just socialist enough to appeal to those who preferred Abbott and Burnham,  but central and Blairite enough to be electable. David, having stuck so closely to the centre, didn’t have the same appeal among the old Labour supporters, and as a result narrowly missed out.

For most of the candidates, the consequences are straightforward. Abbott will return to the back-benches. Burnham and Balls can probably expect nominations for the Shadow Cabinet. Only for David is this less simple: having probably missed his best chance to become leader, rumours have suggested that he could leave politics altogether and forge a new career. Meanwhile, serving in his brother’s Shadow Cabinet could either serve to divide the party (as in the Blair/Brown years) or unite them- as Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor, for example, the brothers Miliband would be in a close working relationship which may soothe David’s supporters. Importantly, they could also form the nucleus of a very solid team, which would be a potential threat for a government defined by its (supposed) internal differences.

Ultimately, it’s the formation of a solid Opposition that matters from this election. Speeches at the conference may set out the stall for the future, but given the political and economic situation, Labour has a mountain to climb. Moving on from their defeat in May might be hard enough, but if they are to make Ed Miliband the next Prime Minister, they will have to reclaim lost public confidence as well as thousands of their core voters. With 32,000 new members having joined over the course of the campaign, the rehabilitation may have begun. Time will tell if it can end happily for them.