SPECTAT rim OR The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LL
Telephone: 0171-405 1706; Fax 0171-242 0603
BBC OXFORD ACCENT
hat is, or who are, 'Oxford Econom- ic Forecasting'? Why was its latest forecast — that the British economy was not doing as well as all that — thought worthy of Inclusion in BBC radio news bulletins last Monday morning? Should voters take spe- cial notice of anything it says? The answer to the first question is that Oxford Economic Forecasting is just anoth- er 'consultancy' business. It has been going ince 1981 and describes itself, when pitch- ing for trade, as providing 'independent forecasting and analysis tailored to the needs of business economists and planners. Its services cover both the international economy and the United Kingdom, and range from regular reports and business seminars to user-friendly PC-based econo- metric models' — PC presumably meaning In, this case 'personal computer' rather than .politically correct', which could perhaps Just as easily be the case. Perhaps it calls on the services of a few Oxford economics dons. But that could be true of plenty of Other consultancy businesses. Not for the first time, 'Oxford' — as in the High Angli- can Oxford Movement or Moral Rearma- ment's Oxford Group — is wittingly or unwittingly used to lend authority to an activity which could go on almost anywhere else in the country. The Oxford United football team is as much associated with Oxford as Oxford Economic Forecasting. A telephone call from this office to the firm — asking whether it was connected with any Oxford university economic faculty — elicited from the switchboard girl the hon- est reply: 'We're not, no.' As for why it was on the Monday news, it Was there because the firm was shrewd enough to put its stuff out on Sunday, the Slowest news day, when newsrooms scratch around for copy for the next day's papers and bulletins. Quite possibly, the people Putting together the BBC news were ill- informed enough to assume that the Oxford Economic Group had something to do with the university. The university's economists were rubbishing Tory economic boasts — great stuff! No blame attaches to the firm. If it can secure good publicity from a gullible or Tory-baiting BBC newsroom, good luck to It. The blame is the BBC's for allowing the unwary listener to assume that this was no mere private business plying its wares, but something to do with Oxford university.
As for its forecasts, the firm has consis- tently taken a pessimistic view of the British economy. Conservative Central Office, like much of its performance so far in this campaign, was slow off the mark in replying to the Oxford pessimism, and did nothing to explain to voters that the BBC had simply broadcast the opinions of a body unconnected with the university. Asked by us for its reaction to the firm's new predictions, Central Office turned out to have some good stuff of its own. It claimed that only one of 16 separate infla- tion forecasts by the firm — and the BBC had emphasised the firm's forecast that inflation would worsen — had turned out to be accurate. Also, the firm forecast in January 1993 that unemployment would be 2,953,000 at the end of 1996 — an overesti- mate by one million. Perhaps the firm has a good answer to these charges. But the BBC should have let voters know that the charges existed.
Being related to the famous is like being given a lease on an expensive house which one then discovers has dry rot: it is a luxury that can bring with it unpleasant sur- prises. Thus Mrs Avis Brock, the mother of the Page Three girl Melinda Messenger, has been complaining to the tabloids of the acute embarrassment of having given birth to a topless model. It is alleged that she even attempted suicide.
During the past few weeks there has been a great deal of hostile criticism in the media of a certain member of the notorious Cur- rie family. The lady in question is accused of a catalogue of sins and misdemeanours. She is attacked for being an inveterate pub- licity-seeker who cannot live unless she is the cynosure of all eyes, particularly of those eyes that belong to journalists.
It is claimed to boot that she is vulgar and that she wears frocks which are a trifle too short to be respectable. Moreover, she cannot resist making capital out of sex and has been described by some as sounding like a tart.
We do not deny that all of this may well be true — or at least some of it. What we do dispute, however, is the tendency of newspaper commentators to blame her behaviour on her family. Surely this is unjust. Miss Debbie Currie cannot be held responsible for her mother.
Debbie, who aspires to be a pop singer, says she lost her virginity at 15 and recently participated in a 'four-in-a-bed orgy'. Con- sidering her mother, it is a relief that she has turned out so well-balanced.
The Prime Minister surely deserves a few votes for an observation which he made to a Cabinet colleague after those first sleaze-dominated days of this election cam- paign: 'At least no one can say we peaked too early.'
Previous page
