JDB and Channel 4 News

Many, many years ago I used to watch Channel 4 News in the UK and marvel at the appearances of academics, offering comment on breaking news stories, particularly on the break up of the Soviet Union and the rise of Yeltsin. Long before I had started a degree I saw this as a perfect life; working at a leading university, researching and teaching on your own specialist subject by day and darting into central London to appear on the television by night.

Today, after over 5 years of working with the media, I had the very great pleasure of appearing on Channel 4 News to offer insight and comment into the state of gun control legislation in the United States.

It as an appearance that meant a great deal to me and I hope you enjoyed it.

Changing Perspectives in American Politics

For decades there has been an accepted maxim in American politics: when the American people felt secure internationally they voted in a Mummy president who would keep any eye on the store and ensure that domestic issues were addressed. However, when they felt uneasy, insecure or altogether threatened, they would vote for a Daddy candidate who would stand tall on the world stage, face down any adversary and defend the nation, come what may. Throughout the past 40 years, Democrats have been cast as the Mummy Party and Republicans as the Daddy. It has been the Republican Party that has managed to successfully wrap itself in the flag and campaign successfully on national security issues, portraying the Democratic Party as being weak and unreliable on foreign affairs. For much of that time they were also able to portray the Democrats as being financially irresponsible and as being advocates of tax and spend approaches to government.

Events of the past two administrations have altered this perceived reality.

During the 1990s the Clinton administration did much to end the perception of the Democrats as being poor handlers of the economy, as the United States entered the 21st century with a debate over what to do with the almighty surplus that had built up in the government coffers. The administration’s handling of foreign affairs was more mixed, but essentially Bill Clinton bequeathed his successor a nation that was prosperous and at peace.

His successor, of course, was George W. Bush, who continued to invert the perceived wisdom in relation to the role of American political parties. The apparent economic prudence of former Republican administration’s was replaced by a tax cut in time of war, which saw the eradication of the surplus, as the administration sought to have guns and butter. If its economic legacy was poor, its foreign policy was worse, as it deliberately ignored previous Republican strategies that had been successfully implemented as recently as 1991.

The inversion of previous perceptions has continued under President Obama. With his team drawn largely from the former Clinton Administration, this is perhaps to be expected. However, Obama has not been able to replicate Bill Clinton’s economic polices, which saw vast reductions in the US debt. Instead, the debt level has increased substantially, to an eye-watering $16 trillion dollars. The scale of the debt is such that easy remedies appear no longer to be an option. The scale of the debt, coupled with an unemployment rate stuck stubbornly above 8% should have spelt doom for the incumbent, but so far it has not.

Unusually, voters are not yet registering their overwhelming disenchantment with the Obama presidency, despite the usual maxim that people vote according to the contents of their purses or wallets; President Reagan’s question remains pertinent today: “Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?”

Instead of running on his economic record, or his groundbreaking (however you view it) decision to implement healthcare reform (initiated, like the Bush tax cut, at precisely the time that it was least affordable), President Obama is instead taking the battle to his opponents, casting them as naives with insufficient experience, indifferent to the plight of normal Americans and ill-prepared for high office. Intriguingly, Four years ago, many of the same accusations were made of Senator Obama.

A key area that Obama is exploiting is the difference in terms of experience in foreign policy. Continuing to defy accepted maxims, the president is portraying himself as the steady, experienced Commander in Chief, and his Republican opponents as woefully unprepared for global leadership. The Republicans have done much to aid him in this. Neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan have served in the military, or focused upon military or defence affairs during their careers in government service. Neither has a record of addressing foreign or military affairs in any manner of note. For a Republican ticket this is unheard of. A quick stroll through past tickets confirms that on all occasions either the top or bottom of the ticket had a recognised appreciation of foreign or military affairs that would be brought to bear in the White House. That is not the case in 2012.

Instead, President Obama has been able to portray himself as the man who killed bin Laden. He has successfully managed to avoid being ‘swiftboated’ on this issue so far, despite many efforts, not least of which is the new book ‘No Easy Day.’ His efforts have been aided by Mitt Romney’s recent overseas trip to Europe and Israel, where he at best did little to impress and at worst did much to reinforce a negative image of his candidacy. Developments in recent days have exacerbated this situation. Despite the potential problems that the numerous embassy storming could have posed politically for the president, Mitt Romney’s poor handling of the issue has actually eased the pressure on the administration.

With a little over 7 weeks to go until Election Day, Obama continues to lead in the polls, both nationally and in key swing states. He has noticeably opened up a lead in the key swing states following the convention. This is not over yet, and the debates could be crucial. A key blunder, an indiscretion and this could all turn on a dime. Yet, as this week’s events have demonstrated, when opportunity presents itself, Romney’s reaction has been far from beneficial to the Republican ticket, and he still has all of the heavy lifting to do if he is to have any chance of securing what at this point would looks like an unlikely victory come November.

A Second Podcast with the Commentator

2012 has brought many pleasing developments; my fellowship at King’s College, my many media appearances and role at The Commentator. The team work tirelessly to put together an informative and engaging publication and I am delighted to be a Contributing Editor, producing my weekly article for them on the latest developments in the United States.

This week I have once again contributed to their latest venture, The Commentator’s podcast, “We Need to Talk…” I sat down with The Commentator’s high-flying Executive Editor, Raheem J. Kassam and former British ambassador to the world’s trouble spots, Charles Crawford, to discuss the week’s developments at the Democratic National Convention and in the British Cabinet.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST…..

Paul Ryan: Pros, Cons and a Podcast

The subject of whom Mitt Romney would select as his running mate has been swirling for several months. Now we know that it is Congressman Paul Ryan, what are the implications?

LISTEN TO MY PODCAST ON THIS SUBJECT HERE

After several months of wild speculation surrounding the Republican Vice Presidential pick, which has included everyone from Chris Christie to Condi Rice, Mitt Romney has named Representative Paul Ryan. In doing so, Governor Romney has ensured that this will be far from a tame, event-free general election. Indeed, the decision appears to have finally ignited interest in the race, passion in Republican supporters and has the potential to spark similar sentiment in the Democratic ranks.

As the author of the much-vaunted Ryan budget proposals, the Republican vice presidential candidate brings a great deal to the ticket; assets and liabilities that will be utilised and exploited by both friend and foe alike in the coming months. As I discussed on Sky News this weekend, Ryan’s presence on the ticket ensures that the American electorate will be presented with a clearly defined choice this November.

What then, are the advantages that Representative Ryan brings?

1. He is NOT Sara Palin. The last minute, poorly vetted fiasco of 2008 has not been repeated, ensuring that Romney has secured the talents of a smart and able young running mate, whose intelligence and ability to answer questions from Katie Couric is not in question.

2. Ryan’s standing with the Tea Party movement should placate those members of the movement that feel they have been sidelined thus far in the presidential process. Clearly Mitt Romney was not the Tea Party’s candidate of choice, but by reaching out and embracing Congressman Ryan, Romney should have done enough to ensure that they turn out and vote Republican in November.

3. Ryan’s presence appears to have already energised what was a rather tame Republican ticket. His unveiling ahead of the convention in Florida ensures that delegates will head to Tampa excited by the ticket, rather than vexing over any shortcomings in Romney’s resume and tax records.

4. Ryan’s age, vitality and recognised intelligence stand in sharp contrast to the current Vice President, Joe Biden, more renowned for gaffes than for policies.

5. In endorsing Ryan, Romney is by extension endorsing the Ryan Budgetary proposals, since this is Ryan’s defining policy. Without his budgetary proposals, Ryan would be just another member of the lower chamber of Congress and an unimaginable candidate for the presidency. His budgetary proposals have elevated him to a position of leadership within the House of Representatives and the Republican Party. By naming Ryan, Romney is allying himself to his partner’s budgetary and spending proposals, which will endear him to the right, but which, as we shall see shortly, ensure a barrage of criticism from the left.

6. By selecting Ryan, Romney has guaranteed that the economy and welfare reform will be central to the campaign. This will make life uncomfortable for President Obama who may be pushed into a foreign policy focused campaign as a result. To do otherwise will risk drawing attention to his deficiencies in the vital areas of welfare and the state of the economy. The alternative will be to initiate a totally negative campaign focused on the Romney/Ryan plan, the like of which Democrats attacked Romney over during the initial primary season.

Whilst the nomination of Congressman Ryan brings with it considerable benefits to the Romney camp, there are also serious impediments to consider:

1. Romney introduced Ryan as “an intellectual” who had been in Congress for 14 years. These are not usually terms of endearment for Republicans and it is easy to imagine these very attributes being portrayed as liabilities in opponents. Indeed, to many in the Republican movement, they are far from ideal and it will be interesting to see how these elements are addressed during the campaign. 14 years is a long time to be in the lower house and there will certainly be uncomfortable voting records for the Congressman to address (including his votes in favour of the bailouts of GM and Wall Street), which Democrats will be eager to exploit in revenge for the savaging that Senator Kerry received in 2004.

2. Romney’s embrace of Ryan enables the White House to link Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital with the cuts espoused in the Ryan Budget plan. The combination will enable the Obama team to portray the Republicans as Robber Barons; vindictive slashers of public services, out to deny seniors their rightful retirement protections and healthcare provisions. The approach that the White House is guaranteed to take on this issue will ensure that Florida, with its elderly population, will be an even more vital state than usual and will undoubtedly be the venue of intense and at times vitriolic advertising aimed at scaring the living daylights out of American seniors.

3. With Ryan’s selection, there is a total lack of foreign policy experience on the Republican ticket. This election cycle could therefore see a bizarre inversion of politically accepted norms, in which the Republicans under Romney and Ryan run on domestically focused economic issues, whilst the Democrats under Obama are forced away from this traditional position to an embrace of strong foreign policy and national security issues, on the premise that the president “killed bin Laden.”

4. Historically, vice presidents have been chosen to add balance to a ticket. This may be geographic balance (north/south, east/west), exemplified in 1960 with Kennedy’s selection of Lyndon Johnson. Balance may also be expressed in terms of age, and again 1960 is a classic example of this, with Johnson’s maturity contrasting with JFK’s youth. Balance may be struck in terms of gender, such as the Mondale/ Ferraro ticket of 1984 and the McCain/Palin ticket of 2008. Finally, balance can be struck in terms of ethnicity, such as Obama/Biden in 2008. None of these elements are adequately addressed in the selection of Paul Ryan and so the Republican ticket is bereft of ethnic, gender or regional balance. Neither does the Republican ticket in 2012 include a Veteran or a Protestant; points that could be significant considering the traditional Republican embrace of God and the military. Indeed, for the first time ever, both main parties have a Catholic on the ticket as vice president.

5. Whilst every presidential candidate wants to have his VP selection recognised as being a smart first choice, the risk for Romney is that his running mate overshadows him. Ryan is a recognised economic/welfare planner with 14 years experience in Congress. Romney is not known for his tenure in office or for his intellectual dynamism. His reputation for being a lightweight risks being exacerbated by his selection.

6. Despite the content of speeches and campaign advertising, the American Presidency is rarely won on issues. It occasionally depends on personality. It is always a matter of figures and the figure that counts is 270. The big question ultimately is simply: Does Ryan help Romney get to the magic number of 270 Electoral College votes needed to secure the presidency? This is the bottom line reason for choosing a running mate. It should not be about personal dynamics or compatibility. It needs to be a cold-hearted calculation: Will this individual help or hinder the electoral chances of the ticket?

Every candidate needs to consider the states that they are likely to win, states they hope to win and states that they are likely to lose, in order to plan a campaign that will deliver victory. In this calculation, a viable candidate must be able to guarantee carrying their home state. (Gore’s failure to win the presidency in 2000 was not helped by the loss of his home state of Tennessee). However, in 2012, neither Romney nor Ryan can take such a fact for granted.

Romney has historical ties to Massachusetts and Michigan. He was governor of the former and grew up in the latter. However, both are recognised as being traditional Democratic strongholds. Massachusetts will not vote for Romney as a favourite son in November and it is highly unlikely that Michigan will either. Obama carried Romney’s home state of Michigan with 57.4% of the vote in 2008, over 16% ahead of his Republican rival. Michigan alone is worth 17 Electoral College votes.

The situation with regard to Ryan in Wisconsin, with its 10 Electoral College votes, is even worse. Whilst Ryan has gained in popularity since his first election and received 64% of the vote in 2008, that same election saw Obama outpoll McCain in Ryan’s own district 51.4% – 47.4%. Statewide, Obama won Wisconsin with a 13.9% margin over McCain, carrying 56.2% of the vote. Ultimately, McCain carried only 13 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties. Despite all of the heat that will be generated in the coming weeks and months the two Republican candidates are starting the campaign in the unenviable position of being unlikely to carry their home states.

The selection of Ryan has energised an otherwise dull campaign. The degree to which this is maintained will be fascinating to see. For far too long, voters have complained that there is little to choose between candidates. In selecting Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has ensured that there will be a clear and distinct policy option presented to the American voters this November. The one winner in all this is Paul Ryan, who like Sarah Palin before him, has been propelled to international renown in the blink of an eye. His statements and appearances in the coming weeks will do much to decide if his next four years will be sent in the Vice President’s residency or in Congress planning his own bid for the presidency in 2016…

Intelligence Design: The Podcast

Earlier this summer, after months of research and interviews, editing and designing, my report on the UK Intelligence Architecture was finally released:

Intelligence Design by Dr James D. Boys

The Rt. Hon Dr. Liam Fox, MP, the UK’s former Defence Secretary, was kind enough to provide a most gracious foreword to the report. Better still, he hand delivered a copy of the report to the Prime Minister, David Cameron. In his foreword Dr. Fox was kind enough to note, “The report’s author, Dr. James D. Boys, is to be applauded for adopting a non-partisan approach to this vital area of national security and for noting advances and errors by the two main political parties… this is clearly a time of evolution and change within the U.K.’s national security architecture. Having initiated bold moves, it is in the long-term interest of the country for the Coalition Government to urgently address the current system and I hope that it notes the recommendations made in this paper.”

I am delighted to announce that my podcast addressing the report, orchestrated by my colleagues at King’s College London, is now live and can be accessed here:

DR JAMES D. BOYS PODCAST ON UK INTELLIGENCE ARCHITECTURE LINK

 

Paul Ryan as Romney’s VP Running Mate

It’s always nice to be awoken with breaking news from leading broadcasters. So it was this morning when I was informed of the breaking news by my contacts at Sky. Within hours I was live on set and considering the implications of Ryan’s place on the Republican ticket.

I will be writing more on this topic later in the week but for now, enjoy my appearance on Sky News from this morning….

 

 

Mitt Romney’s Previous Bad Trip

In light of this week’s visit to London, Israel and Poland by the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, Willard ‘Mitt’ Romney, it is instructive to recall his recent visit to Houston to address the 103rd Annual Convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), America’s oldest and largest civil rights organisation.

Considering that he will face America’s first black president, Barack Obama, in the election this November, his decision was an interesting one. The NAACP has a strong tradition of inviting presidential candidates to address their conventions and is officially non-partisan, however, an analysis of the black vote is revealing.

In 2004, only 7% of African Americans considered themselves Republican. In 2008, 95% of the African American vote went to Obama, in contrast to only 4% going to McCain that year and only 11% to President George W. Bush in 2004. That same year (2008) the black vote rose to 13% of the national total, up from 11%, but intriguingly, Obama’s take of the black vote was up only 2% from that received by Bill Clinton in 1996 and virtually tied with Jimmy Carter’s 94% in 1980.

The Republican take of the black vote has its own interesting elements: In both 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush received 11% of the black vote, considerably higher than the 4% that voted for Bob Dole in 1996 or the 6% that voted for George H. W. Bush in 1992. The 1992 figure was particularly interesting considering the 21% that George H.W. Bush received in 1988 and is perhaps indicative of Bill Clinton’s ability to connect with the African American community. Prior to this, Reagan had received 12% in 1984, and a paltry 3% of the black vote in 1980.

It is possible to discern a pattern, therefore, of overwhelming black support for Democratic candidates and scant support of Republicans.

Romney’s decision to attend was hardly done in the expectation of winning the crowd over and taking the black vote in November, but he could not afford to snub the invitation. Romney faced a tough call in Houston: He could tell the audience what it wanted to hear or he could stick to his message. It has been suggested that he was booed for failing to understand what the audience wanted and for referring to the health care legislation as ObamaCare. In other words, he didn’t pander to his audience.

Irrespective of what one feels about Romney’s politics, there is something to be said about telling an audience something unpalatable rather than merely paying lip service to their desires. Clearly, any Republican seeking to gain the support of the African American community is going to have their work cut out for them. Romney’s task is made all the harder by his opposition to the health care reforms that President Obama has passed and which he plans to repeal. His speech can be viewed in full HERE.

The event has become mired in acrimony.  Romney was booed in places, and cheered in others. He has been accused on MSNBC of attending in the knowledge that he would be poorly received, in the expectation that this would drive ‘racist’ non-black voters into the Romney camp. Such interpretation is clearly incendiary and designed to stoke the passions on both sides. It is certainly far from helpful. Read a transcript of the speech HERE

Romney has also been accused of drafting attendees to the convention to deliberately cheer in key points and to be seen embracing Romney (figuratively, if not literally) after the speech. Romney undoubtedly invited members of the black community to attend this address and it would be more surprising if he had not. The degree to which a small number of invited guests could drown out a hostile crowd, however, is open to speculation. This led to a rather undignified showdown between Bill O’Riley and my old boss Hilary Shelton, the NAACP’s Washington Bureau Chief on Fox News.

Whatever one makes of Romney’s speech and the reaction to it, he did at least attend. This is more than can be said for America’s first African-American president who elected instead to send his gaffe-prone vice president, Joe Biden in his place and record a video message for his many supporters at the NAACP.

It is fascinating that this has not garnered a greater response: Romney has been critiqued for attending, for his speech and for potentially manipulating the crowd. But very little has been said in response to Obama’s ‘scheduling conflict’ that prevented him from attending the annual conference of America’s most important civil rights organisation. Had Romney offered such an excuse surely the accusation would be that he was at the very least indifferent to the black community. What the decision of America’s first black president to stay away says about his priorities heading into the November election is open to similar interpretation.

With 99 short days top go until the election, it appears that neither candidate is covering themselves in glory as they barnstorm the planet in desperate search for cash and votes. In the process they demean themselves and the office for which they year. This, alas, has become the accepted way of doing things and nothing, it seems, is about to alter that, whoever wins in November.

Intelligence Design: UK National Security in a Changing World

After months of research and interviews, editing and designing, my report for the Bow Group is finally available:

Intelligence Design by Dr James D. Boys

I am delighted that Rt. Hon Dr. Liam Fox, MP, the UK’s former Defence Secretary, has been kind enough to provide a most gracious foreword to the report. Better still, he hand delivered a copy of the report to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, yesterday afternoon. In his foreword Dr. Fox was kind enough to note, “The report’s author, Dr. James D. Boys, is to be applauded for adopting a non-partisan approach to this vital area of national security and for noting advances and errors by the two main political parties… this is clearly a time of evolution and change within the U.K.’s national security architecture. Having initiated bold moves, it is in the long-term interest of the country for the Coalition Government to urgently address the current system and I hope that it notes the recommendations made in this paper.”

The report addresses a series of issues relating to the Americanization of the UK Intelligence architecture. It considers the appropriateness of this and the potential benefits or drawbacks that this could bring. The paper addresses the historical basis for this development and addresses the positive moves made by recent UK governments to challenge the status quo that has lasted for far too long and given rise to an ad hoc approach to decision-making in Whitehall.

Transatlantic Intelligence: The Missed Opportunity of the Joint Strategy Board

During President Obama’s state visit to Britain in May 2011, the White House and Downing Street jointly announced the establishment of a Joint Strategy Board to consider matters of long-term security, the threats posed by terrorism and rogue states. At the time it was anticipated that the new body presented the opportunity for the UK and the United States to work more closely together, to share intelligence and analysis, and address long-term security challenges rather than just immediate concerns. It also presented an opportunity to redress imbalances that had arisen in the past.[i]

The development was clearly intended as a commitment to the on-going relations between the United Kingdom and the United States that continues to defy expectations of an imminent demise. The relationship is one that is redefined by each new leader on both sides of the Atlantic; however, its fundamental foundations ensure that it continues to endure despite the fondest wishes of headline writers and left-leaning intellectuals. This announcement was also interesting considering the long and close relationship that has existed between the intelligence communities of both nations and also because of the unusual step of formalising a body that could potentially share what is usually jealously guarded, hard earned intelligence.

The expectation was that the Joint Strategy Board would be co-chaired by the U.S. National Security Staff and the U.K. National Security Secretariat and would include representatives from the Departments of State and Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Joint Intelligence Organisation. The board was expected to report to the U.S. and U.K. National Security Advisors who were expected to meet individually every few months.

The Board was expected to help enable a more guided, coordinated approach to analyse the “over the horizon” challenges we may face in the future and also how today’s challenges are likely to shape our future choices. It is designed to better integrate long-term thinking and planning into the day-to-day work of our governments and our bilateral relationship, as we contemplate how significant evolutions in the global economic and security environment will require shifts in our shared strategic approach. It was anticipated that the Joint Strategy Board would meet quarterly at locations that would alternate between the United States and United Kingdom. The long-term fate of the Board was to be decided by the US and UK National Security Advisors who would review its status after one year and decide whether to renew its mandate. That time has now elapsed.

The Parliamentary National Security Strategy Committee has raise questions as to the status of the Board and received rudimentary responses. The extent to which the Joint Strategy Board has provided any tangible benefits is yet to be seen. The Board only met once in 2011 and there has been an agreement not to disclose the precise topics discussed at meetings.[ii]

The status of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is indeed in a unique position. For all of the attempts to define the relationship in recent years, as Special, Unique or Essential, the relationship is quintessentially unexamined in an official capacity within the Foreign and Commonwealth office. Unlike other nations that have dedicated analysts to consider the rudimentary aspect of the UK’s ongoing relationship across a range of issues, there is no full time dedicated experts considering the future direction of US global policy working in Whitehall.

This point has been lamented by the former Ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer; “I sought regularly and in vain to get the Foreign Office to…draw the conclusion that if it was right to train cadres of specialists in the EU, the Middle East, Russia and China, as we do, then it was also right to create an American cadre, which we do not.”[iii] With over 400 employees currently working in the UK embassy in Washington, it could be rightly asked why more analysts are required in Whitehall. However, those posted to Washington are not necessarily experts on U.S. policy and what is needed in Whitehall is nothing above and beyond the attention that is focused upon other nations, with whom the UK has far less interest.

There is a troubling tradition of assumption making in regard to the actions of the United States. Our shared language and related heritage makes for rushed assumptions in relation to intent and motivation. There is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed regarding a misguided sense of familiarity with regard to American politics and its culture. This inadvertently causes a sense of dependency and reliance that is partially true but which is exaggerated to the detriment of both parties. As Meyer noted, “Think of American as Britain writ large and you risk coming to grief.” [iv]

It blinds the UK to policy flaws that could be potentially detrimental to the national interest and has on occasion bound us to policy initiatives that have been harmful. There is simply not enough strategic, horizon-scanning analysis being conducted on the future direction of US foreign policy and the its potential implications for the United Kingdom. The Joint Strategy Board could have been a solution to this but it does not appear to be addressing the challenges it was established to solve. It appears, instead, to be spending too much of its time addressing short-term issues rather than considering the far-reaching potential of a UK-U.S. alliance.

The Joint Strategy Board is a logical and tangible development, whose mandate should be continued, whose status should be enhanced and whose remit should be clarified. It has the potential to be a source of great significance both structurally and symbolically and its demise due to lethargy would be a sad loss and a missed opportunity.

——

This extract is taken from the author’s extended report entitled, Intelligence Design: UK National Security in a Changing World, which will be published shortly by the Bow Group, with a Foreword by Rt. Hon Dr. Liam Fox, MP.


[i] See James D. Boys, “What’s So Extraordinary About Rendition,” The International Journal of Human Rights,” Vol. 15, No. 4, May 2011, 589–604

[ii] Cabinet Office, Written evidence February 7, 2012, Evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy: First Review of the National Security Strategy 2010, 111

[iii] Christopher Meyer, D.C. Confidential, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005, 59

[iv] Christopher Meyer, D.C. Confidential, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005, 58