Cambridge seeks new Chancellor

[french frank]

Thirdly, there is party politics in these moves. This Conservative doing that Conservative a favour etc. Cambridge have just chosen a noose around their necks and probably ours too.

This Lord Sainsbury is actually a Labour peer.

Edit: Sorry, vinteuil - I messed up my reply and had to start again!

I've only just tumbled to the fact that he's David Sainsbury as was. Joined the SDP, became a trustee of the party and refused to hand over the party funds when the members voted to merge with the Liberals , supporting David Owen's 'continuing SDP'.

[Lateralthinking1]

Well, I didn't say that he was a Conservative although his relations are Tories.

What I was saying is that the company have commercial objectives which seek to trade on library closures. That is a Conservative policy. It also has close links with the Conservative Party and specifically contacts in all of the influential places.

While David Sainsbury may indeed be a member of the Labour Party - who can forget all his years as Minister for Innovation as wider business went down the drain? - it is the classic case of cosying up to all sides. We saw it, for example, with Murdoch. And like Murdoch's NI, the company is ostensibly Conservative.

He, the exception to the rule, is a conservative member of the Labour Party. I don't doubt that he is sincere about it. But if your argument is that he wouldn't be interested in the promotion of the largely Conservative Sainsbury's brand, I don't buy it.

[Vile Consort]

The £82m donation referred to is presumably the one from the Gatsby Foundation (founded and funded by David Sainsbury) which has funded the Sainsbury Laboratory. Contracts were let in 2006, building commenced in 2008 and the first occupants moved in in January. I think we can assume the donation is not dependent on his being elected - unless, of course, he's offered another donation of exactly the same amount - other contributors may have more information than I do on this.

As in all UK universities, the Chancellor is largely a figurehead and takes no part in the running of the institution. He confers some of the higher degrees (which involves getting dressed up and reading a formula in Latin) and is expected to do such tasks as opening new buildings, visiting departments and colleges, meeting major benefactors, etc. And there are statutory instruments he must sign, but has no control over their content. It is somewhat analogous to the powers and duties of the monarch in some respects.

The Chancellor is entitled to attend meetings of the Council of the University, though I do not think he has a vote and he is not its chair. The Duke of Edinburgh caused some surprise by actually exercising his right and keeping himself informed about the matters under discussion. On one occasion, his withering comment on some report being presented was "You sound like you are trying to turn it into a bicycle factory."

As to influence - the nature of influence is such that how much the Chancellor has depends entirely on whether he chooses to say anything, and whether anybody will listen to him when he does.

I'd be interested to see Lateralthinking1's point put coherently and concisely.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, sure. Like all companies, Sainsbury's see the benefits of being cosy with Governments. Ordinarily they might expect the historically pro-business Conservative Party to support their interests more than Labour. In recent years, Labour have sided with big business more than they once did. As it was, one of the Sainsbury's was political and New Labour by inclination. Sainsbury's therefore maintained close links with both main parties and even actively helped Labour to become more conservative. With a Conservative Government now in power, the Labour Lord Sainsbury has no Ministerial influence over business. It is less necessary anyway given that the natural party of business is in Government. The best way he can have influence now is to venture into a new part of the establishment. He has therefore moved towards academia. His new role might be largely symbolic but it is important for him to keep a high profile. It can't do Sainsbury's the business any harm. It might even help it to diversify. Meanwhile all of the long standing connections with the Conservatives will facilitate the business side more directly.

The connection between that networking and his soft power is stronger than it seems. In a battered economy, the Government wants local authorities to close libraries. Sainsbury's want to address their poor returns by moving into book and record sales. The strategy would be that if planning applications for their stores are given the go ahead, they will stock the goods that people would lose with library closure. The Government can say that everyone wants more choice and that is what even Sainsbury's will offer. Those who oppose such a strategy will accuse the Government of cheapening the value of literature and learning by sticking them in shops, albeit at a price. Ah, the Government and Sainsbury's will say, but look at how Sainsbury's is involved in Oxbridge. They have high standards. It is less justifiable morally without that involvement, hence the Lord going to Cambridge. And if the public pressure gets too much and there is some backtracking on closure, well, then he can threaten to stand down and remove any future investment. Yes, he is Labour. The business objectives are ostensibly apolitical. They are though hinged on Tory policies.

I hope that this is sufficiently clear and nearer to a soundbite. Do though let me know if you require any further simplification.

[Vile Consort]

Well if that's the best you can do I suppose it will have to suffice. Perhaps I can help. What you seem to be saying is that he has got himself elected to close public libraries and thus promote book sales in Sainsbury's stores. I can appreciate your not wanting to condense your thought into so few words, because they do rather expose the weakness of your argument.

Actually, Sainsbury is going (back) to Cambridge because (a) the University Council nominated him, and (b) he won the ensuing election very convincingly.

[Lateralthinking1]

Here is a statement from a member of that Council - http://occamstypewriter.org/athenedo...and-tradition/. It is hardly succinct. The election is described with references to the one in 1847, people with walking sticks, trains on the Piccadilly line, bikes being dumped, people being dealt with alphabetically, problems with a rucksack, the reopening of the Combination Room and lengthy comments on gowns. That essay in triviality is three times as long as anything I have written. It wouldn't have even made it onto "The Verb". It suggests to me that shallowness in Cambridge now goes right to the very top. Goodness me. Even ex Civil Servant Dame Mavis McDonald is there. The one with a BSc from LSE who is on a Standards Board for the British Property Federation.

One wonders whether lecturing about writing reveals inabilities in the lecturer. No self-questioning. No questioning of the process. No wider discourse. No analysis. This is what universities and their supporters have become. Perhaps the Lord could investigate the phenomenon by setting up a Committee which has already formed its conclusions. Given all the air that blows through the gaps in your few statements, you close down to any form of intellectual challenge. One is left to make assumptions which is naturally the very purpose of your obliqueness. There is a hint that it was all down to the Council as if he wasn't sounded out beforehand. Of course he would have been. The root of the nomination is likely to have been a subtle expression of interest. Gentlemen can hardly ask directly. A few pertinent words. Smoke of recognition emerged from the hallowed spires shortly afterwards.

Sainsbury holds a stake in the company. One might see in your comments some denial of his business interests being relevant. Again it is guesswork. If this is so, many might view that position as being naive or, more likely, disingenuous. He is also a founder of the Institute for Government which emphasises cross-party consensus. A friend of this Government as of any other. His new appointment is not only business related but political. As Business Weekly said: "Lord Sainsbury understands the machinations of the government inner sanctum. He appreciates the needs of business.....he knows what is required to turn the university’s innovation pipeline into a currency that can be used as a bartering chip for a better-funded future". Ah yes, vested interests.

Your summary of my comments doesn't get them in essence. I have never denied that he has been elected because the university wants support. It has abandoned its soul for the sake of money by going into shopping. What better way of doing it than finding a businessman who is also a politician? There are also others factors involved. The ego of the Lord would be one. You know as well as I do that he isn't there simply to close libraries. In fact, he does not have that power directly. However, his new role does provide him with a business lever. It enables him to show symbolically that he has commitments to high ideals while at the same time assisting his company to rake in more money. If the rest of us lose our public services in the process, he couldn't give a fig.

[Lateralthinking1]

......This sort of thing, placed seven minutes ago on the BBC news website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15332307

[Flosshilde]

The £82m donation referred to is presumably the one from the Gatsby Foundation (founded and funded by David Sainsbury) which has funded the Sainsbury Laboratory.

It should also be pointed out that David Sainsbury's parents, Sir Robert (1906 – 2000) and Lady Sainsbury (1912 - ), set up the Sainsbury Centre at the University of East Anglia (a public gallery as well as a University resource) in 1973, donating their collection of world art & funding the building. David Sainsbury funded additions to the building in 2002 (as a 90th birthday present to his mother). I assume he (or his parents) was also the donor for the Sainsbury Wing at the London National Gallery. So his involvement & that of that particular branch of the family in 'good works' isn't new, nor, I would suggest, particularly sinister.

I'd be interested to see Lateralthinking1's point put coherently and concisely.

[Lateralthinking1]

Factually correct. For the sake of balance, Wikipedia also states:

"In July 2006, he became the first government minister to be questioned by police in the "Cash for Peerages" inquiry. On 10 November 2006, he resigned as Science Minister stating that he wanted to focus on business and charity work.He categorically denied that his resignation had anything to do with the "Cash for Peerages" affair, stating that he was "not directly involved in whether peerages were offered for cash",although this was contradicted by subsequent press reports attributed to "Labour insiders", which suggested that that his resignation was indeed a direct consequence of the affair".

Oh, and the turnout in this election was 2.5%.

[french frank]

I assume he (or his parents) was also the donor for the Sainsbury Wing at the London National Gallery. So his involvement & that of that particular branch of the family in 'good works' isn't new, nor, I would suggest, particularly sinister.

Actually an uncle or cousin - need a bit of time to work it out. But certainly a donation of the grocers


PS A cousin of David Sainsbury, Chancellor of the Univ of Cambridge. That Ld Sainsbury and his siblings are the Conservative branch.

[french frank]

Oh, and the turnout in this election was 2.5%.

That suggests that it doesn't much matter who gets elected, doesn't it?

[Frances_iom]

That suggests that it doesn't much matter who gets elected, doesn't it?

since the electorate is huge (al MAs)but I think you have to turn up in person (are gowns still required?) it shows some commitment (rather like R3 audience of old)

[Lateralthinking1]

Hence all the rucksack stuff. They could have picked someone who had devoted their life to caring for deaf blind children. Perhaps an individual who had improved an area of the countryside for others' enjoyment. A person who had translated huge numbers of fascinating books into English or made a significant scientific contribution towards tackling climate change. But they didn't.

[vinteuil]

...even the French seem amused by these goings-on: (from today's le Figaro)

L'élection très disputée du chancelier de Cambridge
C'est une élection qui n'avait pas eu lieu depuis 164 ans. Autant dire qu'en ce samedi ensoleillé de la mi-octobre, l'événement a attiré les foules, provoquant des embouteillages dans les rues pavées de la petite ville universitaire de Cambridge. Le corps électoral, composé de quelque 150.000 anciens de la prestigieuse université, s'était déplacé de tout le pays pour venir déposer sa voix à la Senate House, vêtu de la robe noire académique de rigueur. L'enjeu ? L'élection du chancelier de Cambridge, un poste purement honorifique consistant à représenter l'université lors de cérémonies et à arbitrer certains conflits.

Le précédent occupant de la fonction attribuée à vie, le duc d'Édimbourg, époux de la reine, s'est retiré au printemps lors de ses 90 ans, après l'avoir occupée depuis 1976. Traditionnellement, la succession n'est guère contestée puisque le candidat désigné par le conseil de nomination de l'université est d'habitude automatiquement intronisé. C'est pourquoi il n'y avait pas eu d'élection depuis que le prince Albert, époux de la reine Victoria, avait dû faire face en 1847 à l'opposition d'un comte.

Mais cette fois-ci, une bataille digne de la primaire socialiste a agité la campagne durant des mois. Le candidat désigné, lord David Sainsbury, baron de Turville, milliardaire, ancien patron de la chaîne de supermarchés du même nom, ex-ministre de Tony Blair, finalement élu avec une confortable majorité (52 %), a dû se confronter à l'opposition de trois autres candidats.

Candidats hauts en couleur
Le plus atypique, arrivé dernier (5,6 % des voix), Abdul Arain, est un épicier musulman d'origine kényane en lutte contre le projet de construction d'un supermarché Sainsbury's en face de son magasin de Cambridge. «Il y a un fossé entre l'université, organisation de premier plan mondialement reconnue, et la communauté de Cambridge, affirmait-il. Nous devons reconnecter les deux.» L'entrée de cet outsider dans la compétition a stimulé celle de deux autres candidats tout aussi hauts en couleur.

Brian Blessed, 75 ans, acteur shakespearien connu pour sa voix de stentor, a ravi un quart des suffrages. Et l'avocat Michael Mansfield (17 %), 70 ans, militant d'une gauche caviar, est entré en lice pour lutter contre la politique éducative du gouvernement qui a triplé les droits d'inscription à l'université.

Unique diplômé de Cambridge parmi les postulants, lord Sainsbury est le seul à avoir pu voter. Le candidat de l'establishment a été privilégié face aux dissidents.

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks. I hadn't realised that AA had stood in opposition to a Sainsbury's in Cambridge. Good for him. As for Michael Mansfield, I have a feeling that there are kinder descriptions than "militant d'une gauche caviar".