Seems the more Brown is lauded abroad, the more he’s reviled at home. When French President Nicolas Sarkozy visited London, he praised Brown for his “courage and loyalty”—yet the U.K. press took this as another embarrassment, since it highlighted Brown’s support for the unpopular Treaty of Lisbon (which will allow EU governance of Britain in place of a constitution that British voters would reject). Similarly, when Brown met George W. Bush at the White House, the president was full of praise, in sharp contrast to their first, chilly meeting last July. But how did Brits take it? “There goes his re-election,” quipped one U.K. journalist.
What explains this divide? Brown’s tenure has produced no major scandals, and no one seriously blames him for the country’s economic woes, given the global credit crunch. Yet his national media’s attacks grow ever fiercer. “There’s a pack mentality among the British press,” says Sunder Katwala, general secretary of the Fabian Society, a Labour-oriented think tank. Clearly, the pack’s now baying for blood: Brown’s approval ratings have plummeted during his 10 months in office, from 59 percent to 28 percent—16 points behind the Tories—due in no small part to his press portrayal as remote and inaccessible. Most recently, he took a beating when he proposed to eliminate the 10 percent tax rate for the lowest-income people, as middle-class Brits complained it would increase their own bills. Brown modified his stance after a revolt by a group of Labour M.P.s—and was blasted for the “humiliating U-turn.”
Even Brown’s mild image makeover—smiling more, doing an “American Idol” charity event—has met with derision at home. Peter Hennessy, professor of contemporary British history at the University of London, says it’s the inevitable result of Labour’s nearly 11 years in power. “This is an endgame government,” he says. “When things go wrong, the penalty you pay is magnified because you’ve been around so long.” Seems this is yet another gift Tony Blair bequeathed his successor. —Rod Nordland
A Class Revolt: Litigation On The Rise As Americans debate ways to tone down litigation culture, Europeans are expanding their own. Underway in Frankfurt, Germany, is Europe’s biggest experiment yet with class-action suits. Sixteen thousand investors who lost their savings when Deutsche Telekom’s stock collapsed in 2000 are suing for €80 million, saying the firm misstated assets. Last December, Italy passed a law allowing collective suits initiated by consumers, and the European Commission is making it easier to seek damages from price fixing.
Why the changes? It’s been hard to sue companies in Europe, even if the damage is obvious. Claimants rarely get access to corporate documents. A “loser pays” system means individuals can get stuck with corporate lawyers’ bills.
The EU wants a fairer system without a U.S.-style litigation industry; big punitive damages remain rare. Cases like Deutsche Telekom’s will test that balance. —Stefan Theil
Bullets To Ballots: From Rebels To Ruler After more than a decade in the bush, Nepal’s Maoists recently gave up on their bloody People’s War. And the Nepalese welcomed them: in a mostly free and fair poll on April 10, the Maoists became the single largest party in Parliament, even as they failed to win a simple majority. That means they’ll likely form a coalition government, raising a vital question: how will the radicals rule? History shows that ex-rebels have a mixed record when it comes to governance.
Nicaragua’s Sandinistas curtailed civil liberties when they assumed power after an 18-year-long civil war. But other policies—such as reducing illiteracy by more than 75 percent—indicated responsible rule, and proved so popular that the Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, was voted back into office last year. In Gaza, Hamas has devoted considerable money to civil services since it took over. But it’s also kept up its wars against Israel and Fatah and murdered Palestinian opponents.
As for Nepal’s Maoists, the signs are positive. They’ve laid down their arms and the election was relatively clean. Nepal’s other parties will also play a checking role: the Marxists may have won a mandate, but they’ll still have to negotiate with rivals to form the coalition. And their promise to respect private property and lure investors suggests they may have come in from the cold for good. —Adam B. KushnerandSudip Mazumdar
By The Numbers Italy has a new prime minister—but he’s had the job before. Why do some states have revolving-door CEOs? Scholars say these once-and-future kings occur when parties are weaker than the personalities who lead them.
3 Number of times (nonconsecutive) that businessman Silvio Berlusconi has been elected prime minister of Italy
2 Number of times each that David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Rabin, Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres have led Israel
2 Number of times that Charles de Gaulle served as prime minister of France, before becoming president for 10 years
2 Number of times that Jacques Chirac served as prime minister of France, before becoming president for 12 years
Lingua Franca: Offshore English Without a doubt, English is the lingua franca of global business. But oddly, native speakers are at a disadvantage when it comes to brokering deals in their mother tongue. Foreign clients, confused by Anglophone colloquialisms, often prefer to work with other non-native speakers. In order to combat this trend, London’s Canning School teaches “offshore English” to future CEOs looking to clean up their language when working abroad.
Offshore English consists of 1,500 or so of the most common English words. It emerged in the 1990s as European and Asian firms saw their international fortunes rise, and it’s proved a hit at Canning, where offshore-English course enrollment has doubled in the past decade.
So what do these classes teach? Mainly, what to avoid: no idioms (say “make every possible effort” instead of “pull out all the stops”). No substitutions (don’t say “put off” for “postpone”). Use Latin-based words (“obtain”) instead of those with Germanic roots (“get”). By the end of class, your vocabulary may be poorer, but your company’s prospects will be all the wealthier. —Christopher Werth
College Admissions: For Seniors, The Waiting Game Is On High-school seniors just survived what experts say was the most brutal college-admissions season ever—but now it’s the colleges’ turn to sweat. A record number of applications, a shaky economy and changes to financial-aid and early-decision programs have made it difficult for the most selective colleges to gauge how many accepted students will actually enroll. To hedge their bets, some schools accepted more students than usual and also assembled longer wait lists.
Institutions rely on historical models to determine their acceptance totals, says Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, and “most of the time [the models] are amazingly good. But we run into problems during periods of turmoil.” This year’s dilemma was due to a record number of high-school seniors—the classes of 2008 and 2009 are the tip of the baby boom’s baby boomlet—all competing for roughly the same number of freshman slots. Many students decided to improve their odds by applying to a greater number of schools, says Maria Laskaris, Dartmouth’s dean of admissions. A few years ago, most students applied to five or six schools; this year, counselors at some of the most competitive high schools had to impose caps of 10 to 12 per student.
The problem for colleges, says Nassirian, is that they don’t know how many of their accepted students have also been accepted elsewhere—or “if they’re the student’s first choice or their 10th. Students always think the colleges hold all the cards, but they don’t.” As a result, some college administrators are working their phones, lobbying their best candidates for a commitment. “That,” Nassirian says, “was unheard of 20 years ago.” —Pat WingertandDaniel Stone
