Held at the RSA in December, Tzvetan Todorov’s discussion of the enlightenment was altogether thought provoking, however it was a minor reference that really caught my attention. Todorov highlighted what he thought to be one fault line left by the enlightenment movement, namely the idea that science can take us anywhere and can teach us everything. A relatively benign concept, it was initially recognized by enlightenment thinkers as both fallible and containing limitations. It has been steadily revolutionized, however, to the point where “scientism” forms what many conceive of as an ideological movement. The basic understanding of scientism is that it is a view that espouses the superiority of science over all other interpretations of life, for example the religious and philosophical. The radicalization is in the overreaching of the discipline into other areas where scientific enquiry may not have jurisdiction, and the sense that there is no other appropriate means of interpreting our reality.  

Todorov discussed scientism as fuelling the evolution of totalitarianism within Europe through the growing sense of biological understanding. Resultantly, we are capable of accelerating the work of nature and eliminating whatever is perceived as a “lower” form of life. An apt example that could be brought in would be the prominence of scientific experimentation and profiling used under the Nazi regime, or even the elimination of bourgeois or minority groups, a commonly repeated formula in European history. For Todorov the permanent cycle of ‘improvement’ we are seeing from science is dangerous, potentially leading us on a path which could very well end disastrously, either for environmental reasons, or because of the encroaching involvement of science in the creation or reconfiguration of humans. And this is something with which ethicists in particular have been grappling for as long as science has been experimentally intervening with humans; the fear that in offering the ability to, for example, ‘design’ our children we will create a race which eliminates everything that is seen as an ‘unwanted characteristic’.

However, another equally provoking application of scientism is in relation to the global warming debate. The leaked emails of some of the most senior environmental scientists in the country revealed a startling level of data manipulation and peer pressure in the struggle to gain footing as the definitive scientific view on present environmental circumstances. I am not going to discuss the truth behind global warming claims, my focus instead is on the extreme scientific perspective displayed by some global warming scientists, what Melanie Phillips called ‘green totalitarianism’. Michael Egnor, in his piece “Scientism and Totalitarianism” sees a ‘militant’ sense of certainty in scientism which, coupled with a severe fanaticism against dissent, is becoming increasingly totalitarian in its practice. The strong-arm tactics employed by the global-warming scientists as revealed by the emails, offer a frightening insight into the lengths that will be gone to in order to gain a unity of opinion within the scientific community. The emails reveal the intent to exclude alternate interpretations or theories, and to delete and doctor raw data. Although this isn’t a representation of the entire field, it represents an influential group of scientists with what I find to be a frightening approach to their craft.

In 2002 the Cobb County Board of education approved the use of stickers in biology textbooks stating, “evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered" only to find themselves in court. The sticker had been added after more than 2,000 parents complained that no other alternative explanations were offered. In court, the school defended its actions in saying that “science and religion are related and they’re not mutually exclusive… this sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science.” The court ruled against the school board, saying that the disclaimers were unconstitutional in their endorsement of religion. The science that I used to learn about at school was one of the pursuit for truth, the acceptance that you are most likely never right but that a theory is true for as long as it goes without being disproved or replaced. Science has undoubtedly grown in its prominence and its scope since the first conceptions of it, and it plays a greater role in modern life than ever before. If there really is a developing scientific fanaticism in what always seemed to be one of the most logical and rational disciplines on any curriculum, I for one find that a sight unsettling. 

Ghent might have one of the largest car-free zones in Europe but there is now a new reason for the environmentally concerned to give it some attention; as of last year Ghent has made every Thursday a lentil-lovers haven of meat-free bliss. Restaurants, canteens, schools and even the odd hospital have signed up to ditch meat one day a week in the hope that they can make a real, and lasting difference to climate change. This isn’t the first example of large-scale vegetarianism; the Pythagoreans are one of several groups who choose to abstain, granted they were concerned more about their souls than the environment. Still there has been an increasing trend towards “meat-free Mondays”.

Jesus College, Oxford became the first member of an educational establishment in the UK to vote for the move to instate a moratorium on meat, at least for Mondays. The movement, which began with the JCR last year, had a steady support from those who wanted to make a change and reduce the carbon footprint of their lifestyle. The JCR President accepted that the impact wasn’t earth-shattering but that one of the main benefits is getting people to start making small sacrifices,  “there isn't going to be a day when suddenly everyone drops what they’re doing and starts trying to save the planet, it's got to be a slow change in the way we live, so making little changes like this is ideal.” With both undergraduate and graduate support, the motion is only waiting for the staff stamp of approval to make meat on Mondays a thing of the past for Jesus.

And its not just our future leaders-in-training that are extolling the benefits of a modified diet, the current, ever-active, cultural leaders from across entertainment and business are putting their names to the cause. Led by Paul McCartney the likes of Sheryl Crow, Chris Martin, and Sir Richard Branson are advocating what Dr. Rajendra Pachwari, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has called “the most attractive opportunity” we have in terms of “bringing about reductions in a short period of time”.  The figures released by the UN bring the swelling popularity of this simple idea into sharp focus. The livestock contribution to climate change, as a percentage of CO₂, is roughly 18%, notably more than the 15% produced by transportation and far easier to reduce. Not only that, but the same report documents the fact that livestock levels are aiding food shortages, now consuming more human edible protein than they produce, a difference of roughly 21million tonnes.

As far as McCartney is concerned "having one designated meat free day a week is actually a meaningful change that everyone can make, that goes to the heart of several important political, environmental and ethical issues all at once." Check out www.meatfreemondays.co.uk if you are interested in giving it a go, without having to sacrifice taste.  

After the recent strike, planned by British Airways cabin crew, was deemed ‘illegal’ by the High Court, the Unite Joint General Secretary Derek Simpson remarked “we'll see at the end of the day who wins this, we will see at the end of the day proper democracy, proper justice”. But what exactly did this central term ‘proper democracy, proper justice’ mean? BA described the “old-style trade union militancy” as far from welcomed by its customers, an estimated one million of whom were likely to have their travel plans disrupted. The idea that the proposed strike served the aims of democracy and justice seems at odds with the fact that the face of those most directly affected soon emerged as customers, and their families. Those who had saved for years to take the dream holiday, those traveling abroad for medical treatment, or even those who were simply visiting family over the festive period. It wasn’t justice for these patrons, nor for the wider company whose ability to pay salaries at all depends on continuing to provide the service they offer. Granted, enticing people to strike, more often than not, takes a real level of dissatisfaction, but my question isn’t the validity of their action, rather the overwhelming reaction of the public against them.

One affected customer stated “I don't blame BA for trying to stay in the game against the likes of Virgin. I do blame the vicious cynicism of the cabin crew.” It seems the public, at least in Britain, have lost their patience with strikes and their proponents. Gone are the days when collective sentiments went in favor of those fighting their injustices, or perhaps it’s just that the battlefield has changed. The recent tube strikes, far from rallying anti-governmental, anti-institutional sentiment infuriated the general public. The overriding sentiment seemed to be that the rights of those who used the services were being severely impinged, no different from the sense of being personally besieged following the repercussions of the postal strike. Thomas Jefferson, reflecting on the tax that led to the Boston Tea Party, and resultantly the American Revolution, stated, “so inscrutable is the arrangement of causes and consequences in this world that a two-penny duty on tea, unjustly imposed in a sequestered part of it, changes the condition of all its inhabitants”. That was an age when the sole understanding of injustice went deeper than a longer holiday or greater job security. In the wake of the economic meltdown the predominant feeling is to be lucky you have a job and to just get on with it.

From a business perspective companies and individuals are under more pressure than ever to stay ahead of the ever-amassing competition and to keep up with consistent technological advancements whilst staying afloat in a turbulent economic world. This means implementing change on what seems to be a near daily basis. As ArLyne Diamond discusses, “adapting to new demands is an important mechanism for both personal and organizational survival. Individuals and groups that do it well seem to be more successful than those that resist and accept the inevitable slowly. But change is so difficult and is almost always resisted”. Most of those in the workforce accept, if not with an always fully welcoming attitude but at least a passive acknowledgment of inevitability, that change is part of what it means to live in the modern climate. The change felt by those in the unions who seek to highlight their plight fail to realize that what they put on banners, most people in modern times accept by adjusting their work levels or heading to the job centre. Arguably everyone is facing the sort of insecurity and financial cutbacks that the minority voice, and the not un-expected response, is a hostile reception for not only complaining about it, but also making the lives of everyone else that little increment more difficult.

 However, modern sentiments towards striking cannot simply be chalked up to recent economic circumstances. Trade unions have been steadily declining in most industrialized Western societies since the late 1970s and early 1980s. In the USA the national average union membership is 12.1%, while in the UK it stands at around 30%.  The reasons behind this are inevitably diverse, including the altered nature of the workforce and economic system, but it makes you wonder whether there is a declining sense of what a good picket line can achieve in modern Britain. Protests are no longer a rare event. When typing ‘protest London’ into Google my computer retrieved 20,600,000 entries on the subject. The advent of celebrity involvement in public outcry for change altered the landscape of protest; unfortunately often their individual efforts sustain a following only for as long as they continue to front the cause. This does not mean that something palpable and positive is not occurring; rather it demonstrates a changed mindset, one in which people want to help but feel overwhelmed by those asking it from them. Since 1980 BBC Children in Need has raised over £500 million, with the most recent event having raised £20,309,747 by the end of the broadcast. It seems evident then that the British public still cares about injustice and actively engages in attempting to alter it. The outcry following the violent clampdown by the Iranian government on those protesting the results of the election is another clear sign, one of many experienced on a daily basis, that ‘what is right’ remains an ultimately fundamental cornerstone of modern Western thought.

Michael Sandel, in his lecture to the LSE, discussed the ‘populist outrage’ felt regarding bailouts in recent times and interpreted it as a return to an almost Aristotelian sense of justice as in accordance with one’s virtues. Strikes in modern Britain, quite simply, make people mad. But it is not a matter of apathy to injustice or selfishness that those affected do not want their lives made harder. It is a matter of getting to the core of what the big issues of today are. For many it seems entirely logical to realize that everyone struggles with similar issues at work because all companies have, at heart, similar basic needs which are being increasingly challenged. The problems our world is facing go beyond pay disputes, and the perspective that affords has helped shift public consciousness, to some extent, into a different way of looking at the problems we face.  Strikes are committed to real and impacting change, but the public very often has bigger concerns. The Boston Tea Party was about freedom, can the modernization of the post office be said to hold itself on par.  

Benito Pablo Juárez Garcia was born on March 21^st 1806 to Marcelino and Brigida Garcia in the village of San Pablo Gueletao, Oaxaca. His parents were small farmers and he worked in the fields and as a shepherd until he was thirteen. Then he walked to Oaxaca City (at the time he was neither literate, nor could he speak Spanish). He did this to take a position as a servant in the house where his sister already worked as a cook, that of the Maza family. It was Snr. Maza who took it upon himself to oversee the boy’s development, having a friend of his, Antonio Salanueva (a lay member of the Franciscan order) teach Juárez reading, writing, arithmetic, Spanish grammar, and bookbinding. Between them Maza and Salanueva saw potential in their young charge and found him a place at a Franciscan Seminary in the city with the intention of Juárez joining the Priesthood.

Juárez became engrossed in his studies of the great Catholic philosophers, such as Aquinas, but choose instead to enter law upon his graduation in 1827. He studied for his law degree at the Institute of Science and Art. It was during this time that he began to read the works of the rationalist philosophers of the Enlightenment, eventually leading to Juárez rescinding the Catholic faith he had previously held.  During his studies he had already shown his interest in politics, serving as a city councilman and proving himself a defender of Indian rights. Juárez graduated in 1834, going on to become a civil judge seven years later and, in 1843, he married Margarita Maza, his patron’s daughter. His next key post was that of Govenor of Oaxaca, a role he served from 1847-1852, at the end of which he became director of the Institute of Science and Art. Juárez ‘s objections to the return to power of dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna made him one of the liberals exiled from the country in 1853.

Upon his arrival in New Orleans in October of that year he took a job in a cigarette factory. It was while in exile that Juárez met with like-minded liberals, helping in the organization of a revolutionary Junta aiming to overthrow Santa Anna. In 1854 the Plan de Ayutla was proclaimed, supported (amongst many others) by Juárez. It sought to remove the dictator and convene a constituent assembly to draft a federal constitution. Returning from exile, Juárez joined the movement that drove Santa Anna from power in late 1854, with General Juan Alvarez taking over the presidency (the beginning of a period known as La Reforma). Juárez was appointed Minister of Justice, a post he used to instigate the “Juárez law” which abolished clerical immunity in law courts, by reducing the jurisdiction of ecclesial courts to ecclesiastical cases only, and abolished military privileges, declaring equality for all citizens in the eyes of the law.

Alvarez stepped down in 1855 at which point Ignacio Comonfort, a moderate, took over. In 1856 Juárez returned to the post of Governor of Oaxaca, during which time he reformed the Institute of Science and Art which had been suppressed by Santa Ana. A year later (1857) he was made the Minister of the Interior, followed a month later by his promotion to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. These promotions occurred in the same year that the new federalist constitution was adopted, further restricting the privileges enjoyed by the Church. It was clerical anger over this constitution joined by conservatives in the country that led to a revolt on the 17^th of December under General Félix Zuloaga. Wishing to avoid a civil war, Comonfort executed an auto-coup d’état in which congress was dissolved and a new cabinet of greater conservative influence was formed. Juárez and several other key members of the government were arrested. Still, further unrest and the desire for a wholly conservative governing body and a revocation of the constitution, led to a new revolt being launched in January 1858 in which Zuloaga was proclaimed president. The deposed Comonfort released the political prisoners, including Juárez, and re-established congress before resigning his role. Under the terms of the new constitution the Chief Justice became the interim president until elections could be held, meaning that Juárez took office in late January, fleeing to Guanajuato.

The period from 1858-61 marked the Mexican War of Reform (so called because of the Reform laws that had reduced Church powers and divided the conservatives and liberals), for which Juárez led the liberal side.  Despite being captured at one point early on in the conflict, Juárez was saved by the poet Prieto who stood in front of him before the firing squad and convinced the rifleman to lower their weapons. The liberals didn’t defeat the conservatives in any battle until 1860. But popular support and the control, throughout the conflict, of the port of Veracruz that served to fund their war effort through customs fees, meant that Juárez eventually triumphed.

The effect of the war on the economy left Juárez declaring a moratorium on repayment of foreign debts, namely those of France, Britain and Spain. A punitive expedition was launched by the three powers who seized Veracruz. However both Britain and Spain pulled out when learning of Napoleon III’s plan to instate a puppet regime in Mexico. The French forces captured the capital in 1863, as Juárez withdrew and gathered resistance in the North. Prior to withdrawing Juárez had his presidency extended by congress to prevent it expiring in 1865 but instead lasting until French forces were defeated in 1867. In 1864 Maximilian von Habsburg (a younger brother of the Emperor of Austria) was proclaimed Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico. Maximilian proved to have some Mexican nationalist sympathies, offering the post of Prime Minister to Juárez who turned him down, refusing to play a role in the enforced rule.

Juárez sought American sympathy, and, with the civil war over, Andrew Johnson invoked the Monroe Doctrine (a US policy introduced in 1823 which said that efforts by European powers to colonize or interfere with the states of America would be viewed as acts of aggression on which the US was obliged to act). Johnson granted Juárez and his government recognition and supplied weapons. The move wasn’t supported by congress so Johnson instead had the army ‘lose’ 30,000 muskets near the Mexican border. Facing pressure from Prussia at home, French troops began a withdrawal in 1866. The last French forces were defeated in 1867 and Maximilian was sentenced to death, despite international outcry for mercy.  In light of the victory, Juárez was re-elected with a strong majority in 1867. But he led a country whose treasury had been wiped clean by two wars, and whose prospects of international investment had shrunk as a result of Maximilian’s execution.

To raise money, land taken from the Church was sold off to the wealthy landowners who had supported the liberals in their war. The dispossessed peasants and those who had fought against Juárez were increasingly pushed to banditry, with estimates of more than a thousand bandits in the vicinity of Guadalajara by 1868. This general unrest led to an increasing numbers of revolts, including those from the Christian left who fought a socialist cause. Juárez’ main rival became Pofirio Diaz, another Indian from Oaxaca.  Diaz challenged him at the polls in 1867 but suffered a crushing defeat before winning in 1871. Diaz’ loss on this second count was attributed by him to electoral fraud. So Diaz attempted to raise another revolt against Juárez, claiming that in seeking re-election the President sought to perpetually maintain himself in office.  The support never materialized and Diaz and his forces were easily stopped. The irony of Diaz’s ‘revolt against re-election’ came later in history when he became known as a leader who imposed a 35-year dictatorship on Mexico. The strain of his difficult position and the years of struggle led Juárez to succumb to a heart attack at his desk in 1872.

Juárez’s legacy lives on in Mexico. Cinco de Mayo, celebrated each year on the 5^th of May, is a homage to the defeat of the French at Puebla in an early victory in 1862. While a Governor, Juárez, influenced by the ideas of equality that his wife held, established public cemeteries throughout Mexico, a move sharply denounced by critics as being counter to traditions and customs in towns which relied on Catholic teaching and established customs. He is now seen as a progressive reformer who dedicated himself in the pursuit of democracy, and countering the overriding powers of the Church. His time in power created a liberal political and social revolution which brought the army under civilian control, saw separation of church and state  and sought to replace the semi-feudal system of Mexico with a more market-driven approach.  Yet he is not universally revered, with many claiming that the liberals created a history of villains and heroes to hide the mistakes they made. Recently members of the conservative National Action Party have attempted to rename public monuments, roads etc. that are connected to Juárez and the Reform wars claiming that he was not the person that others proclaim him to be.

As with any political leader there are high and low points to Juárez’s legacy, and inevitable disagreement about his fundamental character. However, it is hard not to see him as a ‘great liberator’ for his defeat of the French and as a revolutionary leader of change.  One of his most famous quotations seems a fitting way to remember him as a leader and thinker, “Entre los individuos, como entre las naciones, el respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz”, “Among individuals, as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace”.

When watching Nadal and Davydenko fight it out for a spot in the final stages of the ATP tournament, the insuppressible question that came to mind was “has England lost its popularly conceived affection for the underdog?” The overt favoritism of Nadal by the crowd (namely the incredibly vocal female contingent) was so tangible it left Davydenko apologizing "I know so many of you guys were supporting Nadal - I'm sorry about this one!” Davydenko may not have been the underdog once play started in earnest, but he was certainly seen to hold that position before the players arrived on court. Why then did he fail to elicit the requisite British support served up with earnest enthusiasm for those with the worse prospects?

The perception of the British mentality has been, and continues to be, that they love nothing more than an underdog. This is aptly shown in A Fish Called Wanda in which the American character (Kevin Kline) remonstrates the English mindset, stating, “you know what your problem is? You don’t like winners!” It is a phenomenon noted by Mia Gilson in her retrospective look at the British culture she traded for America, the public “take heart in cheering for the losing side, and even greater heart when their support rallies their chosen one to victory. But this is not just related to sports- just have a look at comedy, politics, arts, pretty much every genre you can think of wallows in glorying pity for the one who should have no chance of success”.

It seems strange then to note that this cherished cultural weakness for the underdog may be waning. Even the “Sergeant effect” of last year’s Strictly Come Dancing seems to be wearing off. The overwhelming support he received came despite his consistent inability that landed him with the lowest marks in the competition.  Perhaps we can blame the economic climate for the overriding sense of a society embattled, and the universal sense of victimization. This is something felt by, not only those in the lower rungs of economic prosperity, but, more than ever, by those at the top facing the economic and social pressures the downturn has produced. The society of today is gripped in a battle for ‘justice’, something Michael Sandel touched on in his lecture to the LSE. He discussed the ‘populist rage’ surrounding bailouts and subsidization as not simply fuelled by fairness in a monetary sense, but rather a deeper issue; an Aristotelian view of justice as giving people that which is deserved in accordance with their virtues. There seems to me to be an overriding emphasis on this necessity for justice across the board in society, filtering into business, politics, and aspects of popular culture.

However, there have always been those who supported the popular, the strong support amongst many of my generation for Manchester United serves to display this very point. And it is not always without merit. But there seems to be a feeling that this blind disregard for those with the worst odds is somehow quintessentially not British. The American worship of success is much more closely reflected in the desire to back the popular, the winner.  Perhaps this is based in the contrasting backgrounds of the American and English psyche. Where Britain traditionally (at least in recent history) saw itself as a small country who were themselves the underdog, fighting in the face of failure, the oft mentioned ‘American dream’ perpetuated a sense of ‘can-do’ spirit; of success as within reach for all American citizens if they simply choose to attain it. It is entirely possible that there is a schism forming between those with more traditional values and those who instead choose to propagate the message of the modern ‘popularity culture’, there will always be those who support the Nadals of this world, but I’d like to believe society isn’t entirely crumbling to modernity.

It is hard to say with any certainty if this relic of traditional British identity is in the decline, perhaps there is simply an emphasis on the right person winning. Despite conflicts with the unbending popular support of some, there is an enduring sense in which society seems to be, on the whole, seeking the fair and just end. Whether we are economically depressed and embodying an international malady of spirits, or succumbing to the glaring lights of success, I think the truth of the matter lies in the fact that we are a society, as ever, in flux. For those wishing to see the continuance of this ‘British facet’, I can only suggest turning to Wimbledon for the inevitable revival of good, old-fashioned optimism, in the face of the Williams sisters and their similarly brawny contemporaries. Come on Tim!

Here's a biography I wrote recently for the LeaderValues newsletter ....

The founder of the Glastonbury Festival, Athelstan Joseph Michael Eavis, CBE, was born on the 17th of October, 1935 to a Methodist local preacher (his father) and a school teacher (his mother). He attended Wells Cathedral School until he was 15 when he left to join the Union-Castle Line, becoming a trainee midshipman as part of the British Merchant Navy. He spent these years largely sailing between Britain, Kenya, and South Africa. His plan to spend 20 years at sea and build up a pension to subsidize his farming career was cut short by the death of his father to cancer when Eavis was 19. He reluctantly agreed to take on the “150 acres of land, 60 cows, and an overdraft” (as is popularly reported). He eventually came to love the work, and the farm still produces 10,000 litres of milk a day. Around the time his father died Eavis married his first wife Ruth with whom he had three children. The couple divorced in 1964.

It was with Eavis’s second wife, Jean Hayball, that he experienced the event that would lead him to create Glastonbury.  In 1969 they attended the Blues festival at the Bath and West Showground, where they saw Led Zeppelin. Eavis still recalls the moment that led to starting his first festival, stating, “something flashes down and you suddenly change. Bit like St.Paul; do you know what I mean? There’s a change of attitude, a change of purpose.”  The couple hosted a free festival (the Pilton Festival) in 1970. Tyrannosaurus Rex headlined (later T-Rex). Stackridge and Al Stewart, amongst others, performed. About 1500 festival goers paid £1 for the privilege and they also received free milk from the farm.

In 1971 the second festival was held (called the Glastonbury Fayre) and it received worldwide attention. Performers included David Bowie, Traffic, Fairport Convention, Quintessence, and Melanie.  It was at this event that an early ancestor of the Pyramid stage first appeared. Believers in the Fayre’s ideals, one of going against over-commercialization appearing in music events of the day, supported the festival and as a result entrance was free. The festival took a more encompassing approach, including music, dance, poetry, theatre, lights and spontaneous entertainment, and acts included David Bowie and Fairport Convention. The event was organized by Andrew Kerr and Arabella Churchill.

The festival didn’t return until 1978, known as the “impromptu festival” because it was the result of a group of travellers from Stonehenge who were led to believe a festival was taking place. A free mini festival did eventually take place and despite the lack of facilities and organization 500 people attended.

It wasn’t until 1981 that the name was changed from the Glastonbury Fayre to the Glastonbury Festival, and that year saw Eavis taking the helm once more to provide firm leadership for the event. This was the first festival to raise funds for the “Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.” This was also the festival at which a permanent Pyramid stage was created. It doubled as a cowshed and animal food store in the winter months.

The festival continued to grow and change, taking on its current title of “Glastonbury Festival for Contemporary Performing Arts” for the first time in 1990 as a tribute to the diversity of attractions offered.  The charitable side of the festival shifted to Greenpeace and Oxfam in 1992 following the end of the cold war. Eavis felt that people’s concerns were shifting from the threat of nuclear war to issues concerning the environment. £250,000 was raised for the charities,  which also included some local groups.

Despite the increasing popularity of the festival, Eavis contracted stomach cancer in 1994, calling that the ‘show go on’ despite his recovery.  Eavis steered the expansion and improvement of the festival, with attendance topping 100,000 in 1998. In 1997 Eavis stood for the Wells Constituency in the General election as a Labour Party candidate. He polled a total of 10, 204 votes but still came third. His political allegiance changed when, in 2004, disillusioned by the Iraq War, he suggested that Labour voters switch theirs votes to the Green Party in protest.

In 1999 Eavis’s wife Jean sadly died from cancer. At the festival a winged wicker sculpture was ceremonially burnt in her honor, before a fireworks display. The year showed yet more variety available to attendees, with over 250 food stalls and over 300 bands. Eavis’s intelligent decisions meant that the festival continued to attract some of the most popular bands and performers each year. He also effectively responded to the problems of increasing popularity following the influx of gatecrashers seen in 2000.  This was the same year that he met his third wife, Liz, at a medieval fancy dress party.

The Festival took 2001 as a year off to deal with the gatecrashers issue. They had been prosecuted for a breach of licensed attendance and fined £5,000 as well as a further fine of £1,000 for noise offences in one of the Festival’s car parks.  The site underwent work to secure its perimeters (with The Fence) whilst a “virtual festival” was held on the website, showing archive footage and some live acts.

All in all the festival has continued its remarkable trajectory, with every year heralding a new, more successful Festival than previously seen. Tickets regularly sell out within hours and despite the reputation for mud and rain, it is an ongoing success story.  After the serious flooding of 2005, over £750,000 was spent on “flood defences” which undoubtedly helped.

Eavis made a rare appearance on the Pyramid Stage in 2005 as part of the Make Poverty History Campaign, a year in which in total £1,350,000 was raised for charities and good causes.

Despite the reputation of ‘hippy like hedonism’ that pervades Glastonbury, Eavis himself remains a tee-total Methodist, attending Chapel every Sunday with his wife and, now 93 year old, mother who plays the organ. He claims himself to be “a bit puritanical” on issues concerning smoking, drugs and alcohol; upon seeing a group on Bath High Street drinking alcohol, his reaction was to wonder why they didn’t get out into the world and get a job.  In Eavis’s own words “I’m a bit of a Puritan, but I do enjoy myself immensely. I have a hell of a time. I’ve got the best life anyone could possibly have. I’m not moaning. This whole Festival thing is better than alcohol, better than drugs. Its marvelous.”

Eavis has created and led what many view to be the pre-eminent music festival in Europe today, guiding it at every step to make it current, appealing, and ever more varied. He has also supported “good causes” throughout. To quote Wikipedia:

“After the huge number of tents left behind in 2007 the Festival devised its Love the Farm, Leave No Trace campaign which gently pushed revellers to respect the environment and clear up after themselves. The Festival had always pushed a green agenda and new initiatives in 2008 included biodegradable tent pegs handed out free to all campers and biotractors running on waste vegetable oil. These new efforts were rewarded with The Greener Festival Award for 2008.”

At the same time as leading the Festival with daughter Emily, Eavis balances life as a working farmer and an active advocate for good causes dealing with some of the greatest problems facing mankind today. He is a leader in a way that he never seems to have set out to become, being listed in the Time magazine 100 most influential people in the world in 2009, and receiving a CBE in the Queen’s 2007 birthday honors list.