Ever since the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg informed his close friend, political ally and colleague David Cameron that they would have to find something to disagree on, I have been waiting patiently for the moment they would finally have their little tiff.
Well it seems as though it has finally happened. So what is it over? Taxation? How to bring the banks into line? Tuition fees? None of those. Their argument is over, of all things, whether or not it is right for young career-minded types to gain an internship through family members or other contacts. Could they have found anything more bourgeois to argue over?
Sunday 24 April 2011
Celtic v Rangers - The Sunday Supper cure
The historic rivalry between Scotland's biggest two football clubs, Rangers and Celtic, reached new depths this week when it emerged that high-profile figures associated with Celtic, including manager Neil Lennon, were sent parcel bombs through the post. Thankfully the parcels were dealt with accordingly and nobody was hurt.
This latest episode however marks a new low in behaviour which has marred the rivalry between the clubs, which so far this season has included dozens of arrests, public bust-ups between the clubs' management staff and players and rather unhelpful poppy-day protests by the Celtic supporters. Even earlier today, when in light of recent events supporters were on their best behaviour, there were still arrests and others pointlessly walked around parading banners of their symbols of choice, none of which had anything to do with football.
Feeding into this rivalry is the additional fact that the Scottish Premier League is one of the least competitive top-flight competitions in Europe, if not the world. It is effectively about two clubs - Rangers and Celtic. This brings further intensity and relevance to the rivalry. So far this season, league and cups, they have played each other on seven separate occasions. Familiarity really does breed contempt.
The Sunday Supper remedy is to de-legitimise the less savoury aspects of the rivalry, with the potential by-product of a more competitive Scottish Premier League. Here are the suggestions:-
1. The matches between the sides, known as 'Old Firm' matches, should be played behind close doors on one occasion at both grounds in the event of extreme misbehaviour at any match.
2. The matches should be played in front of a reduced capacity crowd if this would be considered to make policing easier.
3. Familiarity breeds contempt. They should play each other less often. A Scottish Premier League with 16 or 18 teams and only two (instead of four) rounds of matches would facilitate this.
4. Fine them heavily when appropriate.
If these ideas were put in place, it would quickly emerge that the idiots are spoiling the game for everyone else. It is time to get tough.
This latest episode however marks a new low in behaviour which has marred the rivalry between the clubs, which so far this season has included dozens of arrests, public bust-ups between the clubs' management staff and players and rather unhelpful poppy-day protests by the Celtic supporters. Even earlier today, when in light of recent events supporters were on their best behaviour, there were still arrests and others pointlessly walked around parading banners of their symbols of choice, none of which had anything to do with football.
Feeding into this rivalry is the additional fact that the Scottish Premier League is one of the least competitive top-flight competitions in Europe, if not the world. It is effectively about two clubs - Rangers and Celtic. This brings further intensity and relevance to the rivalry. So far this season, league and cups, they have played each other on seven separate occasions. Familiarity really does breed contempt.
The Sunday Supper remedy is to de-legitimise the less savoury aspects of the rivalry, with the potential by-product of a more competitive Scottish Premier League. Here are the suggestions:-
1. The matches between the sides, known as 'Old Firm' matches, should be played behind close doors on one occasion at both grounds in the event of extreme misbehaviour at any match.
2. The matches should be played in front of a reduced capacity crowd if this would be considered to make policing easier.
3. Familiarity breeds contempt. They should play each other less often. A Scottish Premier League with 16 or 18 teams and only two (instead of four) rounds of matches would facilitate this.
4. Fine them heavily when appropriate.
If these ideas were put in place, it would quickly emerge that the idiots are spoiling the game for everyone else. It is time to get tough.
Sunday 17 April 2011
The Grand National - horse racing must escape the shadow of death
It has been a week since the most deadly Grand National in recent years. The horse race at Aintree Racecourse accounted for two horse deaths, and yesterday its Scottish equivalent accounted for two more. The events at Aintree were even more shocking because unusually they were caught graphically on national television. It has left me reconsidering my own relationship with the sport.
Racing has been personal to me for many years. I loved the sport as a child. In particular, the spectacle of the Grand National captivated me. The flat, and events such as The Epsom Derby, seemed uneventful by comparison. In my early adult years, I chose to work in the industry.
It was there where I learned how barbaric the sport really is. Betting shops up and down the land show dozens of horse races every day from a number of courses. The coverage is more saturated than ever. Yet even at smaller courses, with fences nowhere near as formidable as those Grand National obstacles, horses are routinely killed. With clearly fewer cameras than those used on a big race day, betting shop customers are fully exposed to the horrors of horse racing - on the screen.
These horrors take different forms. Some horses break their legs and the viewers witness them struggling, unsuccessfully, to return to their feet. On rare occasions, a doomed horse may be able to get back to its feet, where viewers are then 'treated' to the sight of a soon-to-be-dead creature hobbling around with a snapped and dangling leg impeding its gallop.
A horse breaking its back is more unpleasant still. The horse may be able to lift its head before returning it to the canvas trying to comprehend why its body is busted.
Luckier horses die instantly, particularly if they land on their head and break their necks. The signal here is the post-death spasm when an already-dead animal shudders violently, legs quivering. Again, all captured on live racing feeds going into the betting shops.
The only obituary these dead animals receive is a 'dead' comment in the race results in the following day's racing industry press. For example: Horse Name (fell); started strongly, mistake first fence, fell 3rd, dead. Lovely.
Many betting shop customers are immune to it. As one such punter disturbingly responded to an obvious horse fatality, 'that horse has just killed itself'. Yes, it was the horse's fault for jumping the fence like a fool.
Unlike such heartless souls, I never really built up an immunity to it. I have always seen it as an unacceptable feature of a sport I assume will always be here. As the sport is always going to be here, then reform is needed.
The issue of horse fatalities has now reached the public consciousness, but not just because this year's Grand National meeting was significantly more brutal than previous events. Twenty horses have died on the Grand National course since 2000 - a shocking record for a course which is only substantially used twice annually.
It has reached the public consciousness because this time the cameras did not miss the carnage as they usually do. The viewers, therefore, were subjected to a sample of what the betting shop customer is frequently exposed to.
During the race, as the horses thundered around the circuit for the second time, a decision was taken to bypass the two fences where the two horses were killed on the first circuit. I have no idea why this course of action was chosen - I cannot recall it ever being taken in the race previously. As a result, the dead horses were not scraped off the track and dumped to the side, off-camera, as they usually would be.
As the fence was bypassed, viewers witnessed a bulge on the floor in front of the fence itself covered in a sheet. Two fences later, the horses bypassed another fence where screens had been erected to protect public eyes from what was occurring behind them.
It does not take a great mind, nor a knowledgeable racing enthusiast to deduce the horrors those canopies were covering.
The resulting uproar has demonstrated just how unacceptable this is to the general public. It is no exaggeration to say the sport lost many casual fans last Saturday, particularly those more sheltered from the danger the race brings.
Following the race, the industry has closed ranks with the usual excuses. 'The horses love it or they would not do it' is one. 'They get a good quality of life and are pampered' is another. This is a little like saying 'I have a slave, yes, but he is very well fed and has nice living quarters, so he can be grateful for my benevolence'.
These excuses will not wash this time. Racing simply must act. Softening the Aintree fences has not stemmed the flow of deaths as the above statistic testifies. There are many more precautions that could be taken. Firstly, are some of the horses good enough to do what is being asked of them? Secondly, what can be done to ensure the race is run on softer ground, which ought to provide a slightly safer landing?
Change is difficult without a plurality of voices though. Despite the outrage, I can only recall one notable opponent by name, and that is Andrew Tyler, whose Animal Aid organisation has been campaigning against the race, and jump racing in general, for many years. His voice has been heard on the radio and television, and his words have been read in the press. However, without plurality, Tyler will be treated dismissively by the guardians of racing's reputation as a minority voice against the sport. The usual excuses will continue to be wheeled out.
True, the tabloid press reported the deaths and gave a public voice to public outrage, but this is mainly for the benefit of powerful headlines. These same publications were printing sweepstakes for the race earlier in the week and will do so again next year, along with the usual free bet offers. They are unreliable allies.
Where are the other voices? Where are the other animal welfare organisations? Where are the politicians? There must be one MP in that house in Westminster who finds the treatment of this revered animal as objectionable as the hunting down and savagery of the fox.
Once a range of voices emerge, the issue will suddenly become too potent to ignore. It moves from animal welfare groups, to the media and eventually the public. When it does, other issues regarding racing animals soon emerge.
Thousands of thoroughbreds are bred every year. Many will never make the grade as a racehorse. Those that do join thousands of other horses on the track until they are no longer competitive. No calculator is required to realise that many of these spent horses will not be happily running around on fields when they are deemed not worthy of racing.
Since horse meat is a continental delicacy, my guess is a significant number end up at the abattoir to be slaughtered for their meat. Suddenly the Grand National fatalities seem small fry, excuse the pun.
Despite everything, racing has a future and can have a virtuous future. It is a massively popular spectator sport. In a reversal of my childhood, these days my passion has shifted to the flat, for reasons above. The biggest races on the flat calendar are high-value events involving high-value animals. These horses truly are revered, and many will have a career in breeding after they are finished on the race track.
It is worth noting though that the emotional value of these horses is always proportional to their financial value. There will always be more tears, more column inches in the racing press and more statements about the loss of a beloved animal, if that dead animal was successful on the track and worth a lot of money. These deaths are less common on the flat, for flat racing does have a far lower attrition rate of horses than the jumps.
There is too much racing though, and it leads to horses being over-bred and used as cheap commodities. With so much racing, the lowest value races have prizes of less than £2,000 to the owners of the winner. What use is that to a horse owner?
Applying market theory, fewer racing events will increase the value of the events, the horses and the race meetings. Betting shops may be less enthusiastic though - having race events constantly going off keeps the wheels turning on a race day. As things stand though, there is something of the market failure about horse racing, with the main victims being the horses themselves. Therefore, racing must get its house in order. The public are now aware of the death and destruction surrounding the sport - and are not about to forget.
Racing has been personal to me for many years. I loved the sport as a child. In particular, the spectacle of the Grand National captivated me. The flat, and events such as The Epsom Derby, seemed uneventful by comparison. In my early adult years, I chose to work in the industry.
It was there where I learned how barbaric the sport really is. Betting shops up and down the land show dozens of horse races every day from a number of courses. The coverage is more saturated than ever. Yet even at smaller courses, with fences nowhere near as formidable as those Grand National obstacles, horses are routinely killed. With clearly fewer cameras than those used on a big race day, betting shop customers are fully exposed to the horrors of horse racing - on the screen.
These horrors take different forms. Some horses break their legs and the viewers witness them struggling, unsuccessfully, to return to their feet. On rare occasions, a doomed horse may be able to get back to its feet, where viewers are then 'treated' to the sight of a soon-to-be-dead creature hobbling around with a snapped and dangling leg impeding its gallop.
A horse breaking its back is more unpleasant still. The horse may be able to lift its head before returning it to the canvas trying to comprehend why its body is busted.
Luckier horses die instantly, particularly if they land on their head and break their necks. The signal here is the post-death spasm when an already-dead animal shudders violently, legs quivering. Again, all captured on live racing feeds going into the betting shops.
The only obituary these dead animals receive is a 'dead' comment in the race results in the following day's racing industry press. For example: Horse Name (fell); started strongly, mistake first fence, fell 3rd, dead. Lovely.
Many betting shop customers are immune to it. As one such punter disturbingly responded to an obvious horse fatality, 'that horse has just killed itself'. Yes, it was the horse's fault for jumping the fence like a fool.
Unlike such heartless souls, I never really built up an immunity to it. I have always seen it as an unacceptable feature of a sport I assume will always be here. As the sport is always going to be here, then reform is needed.
The issue of horse fatalities has now reached the public consciousness, but not just because this year's Grand National meeting was significantly more brutal than previous events. Twenty horses have died on the Grand National course since 2000 - a shocking record for a course which is only substantially used twice annually.
It has reached the public consciousness because this time the cameras did not miss the carnage as they usually do. The viewers, therefore, were subjected to a sample of what the betting shop customer is frequently exposed to.
During the race, as the horses thundered around the circuit for the second time, a decision was taken to bypass the two fences where the two horses were killed on the first circuit. I have no idea why this course of action was chosen - I cannot recall it ever being taken in the race previously. As a result, the dead horses were not scraped off the track and dumped to the side, off-camera, as they usually would be.
As the fence was bypassed, viewers witnessed a bulge on the floor in front of the fence itself covered in a sheet. Two fences later, the horses bypassed another fence where screens had been erected to protect public eyes from what was occurring behind them.
It does not take a great mind, nor a knowledgeable racing enthusiast to deduce the horrors those canopies were covering.
The resulting uproar has demonstrated just how unacceptable this is to the general public. It is no exaggeration to say the sport lost many casual fans last Saturday, particularly those more sheltered from the danger the race brings.
Following the race, the industry has closed ranks with the usual excuses. 'The horses love it or they would not do it' is one. 'They get a good quality of life and are pampered' is another. This is a little like saying 'I have a slave, yes, but he is very well fed and has nice living quarters, so he can be grateful for my benevolence'.
These excuses will not wash this time. Racing simply must act. Softening the Aintree fences has not stemmed the flow of deaths as the above statistic testifies. There are many more precautions that could be taken. Firstly, are some of the horses good enough to do what is being asked of them? Secondly, what can be done to ensure the race is run on softer ground, which ought to provide a slightly safer landing?
Change is difficult without a plurality of voices though. Despite the outrage, I can only recall one notable opponent by name, and that is Andrew Tyler, whose Animal Aid organisation has been campaigning against the race, and jump racing in general, for many years. His voice has been heard on the radio and television, and his words have been read in the press. However, without plurality, Tyler will be treated dismissively by the guardians of racing's reputation as a minority voice against the sport. The usual excuses will continue to be wheeled out.
True, the tabloid press reported the deaths and gave a public voice to public outrage, but this is mainly for the benefit of powerful headlines. These same publications were printing sweepstakes for the race earlier in the week and will do so again next year, along with the usual free bet offers. They are unreliable allies.
Where are the other voices? Where are the other animal welfare organisations? Where are the politicians? There must be one MP in that house in Westminster who finds the treatment of this revered animal as objectionable as the hunting down and savagery of the fox.
Once a range of voices emerge, the issue will suddenly become too potent to ignore. It moves from animal welfare groups, to the media and eventually the public. When it does, other issues regarding racing animals soon emerge.
Thousands of thoroughbreds are bred every year. Many will never make the grade as a racehorse. Those that do join thousands of other horses on the track until they are no longer competitive. No calculator is required to realise that many of these spent horses will not be happily running around on fields when they are deemed not worthy of racing.
Since horse meat is a continental delicacy, my guess is a significant number end up at the abattoir to be slaughtered for their meat. Suddenly the Grand National fatalities seem small fry, excuse the pun.
Despite everything, racing has a future and can have a virtuous future. It is a massively popular spectator sport. In a reversal of my childhood, these days my passion has shifted to the flat, for reasons above. The biggest races on the flat calendar are high-value events involving high-value animals. These horses truly are revered, and many will have a career in breeding after they are finished on the race track.
It is worth noting though that the emotional value of these horses is always proportional to their financial value. There will always be more tears, more column inches in the racing press and more statements about the loss of a beloved animal, if that dead animal was successful on the track and worth a lot of money. These deaths are less common on the flat, for flat racing does have a far lower attrition rate of horses than the jumps.
There is too much racing though, and it leads to horses being over-bred and used as cheap commodities. With so much racing, the lowest value races have prizes of less than £2,000 to the owners of the winner. What use is that to a horse owner?
Applying market theory, fewer racing events will increase the value of the events, the horses and the race meetings. Betting shops may be less enthusiastic though - having race events constantly going off keeps the wheels turning on a race day. As things stand though, there is something of the market failure about horse racing, with the main victims being the horses themselves. Therefore, racing must get its house in order. The public are now aware of the death and destruction surrounding the sport - and are not about to forget.
Some thoughts on the alternative vote system
What difference will AV make? In principle I like it. No vote is wasted. Voters rank their choices in order of preference, and when their favoured candidate is eliminated their ballot papers are then counted as their next preference. And so on, until one candidate gets more than half the vote.
While people are getting a little rattled about infinite hung parliaments and the probable rare instance of a third-placed "first choice" candidate coming first in the final round, I am not sure how much of a difference AV will really make.
It is argued it will make MPs with a thumping majority work harder for their votes as there is an increasing chance they could be turned over. Somehow I doubt the MPs in the safest seats in the land will have much to lose sleep over. It will just add to the uncertainty in the marginals.
Having said that, I am aware of the limitations of first-past-the-post. It is hardly democratic that someone who wants a parliamentary career can get one if they say the right things to the right people, then win a safe seat from the comfort of their mansion. While unconvinced, if AV can take away some of that sort of certainty, I would support it. It is hardly full proportional representation though.
While people are getting a little rattled about infinite hung parliaments and the probable rare instance of a third-placed "first choice" candidate coming first in the final round, I am not sure how much of a difference AV will really make.
It is argued it will make MPs with a thumping majority work harder for their votes as there is an increasing chance they could be turned over. Somehow I doubt the MPs in the safest seats in the land will have much to lose sleep over. It will just add to the uncertainty in the marginals.
Having said that, I am aware of the limitations of first-past-the-post. It is hardly democratic that someone who wants a parliamentary career can get one if they say the right things to the right people, then win a safe seat from the comfort of their mansion. While unconvinced, if AV can take away some of that sort of certainty, I would support it. It is hardly full proportional representation though.
Sunday 10 April 2011
Old
Probably the shortest title ever written on this website, earlier I was locked in discussion about old people, and what sort of prejudice they face. In a world where racism and sexism are long identified issues, the issue of ageism has come to the fore in recent times. How bad is it?
In the previous paragraph, I deliberately used the word 'old' and not elderly, as the world 'old' is seldom used politely. It is quite rare for the word 'old' to be used sensitively, for instance 'old dear', but regularly compounded with an insult. Here are a just a few examples of the lovely phrases associated with the word 'old':-
Old git
Old codger
Old bastard
I could go on, but you get the picture.
Still, it is good to see that ageism is not institutionalised in this country - unless you ignore the fact that unemployed over-50s find it incredibly difficult to find work (link). Despite the BBC Panorama episode investigating this problem, let us not take too many lessons from the corporation since the BBC has recently suffered the indignity of having its ageist practices shamefully exposed when former Countryfile presenter Miriam O'Reilly won her employment tribunal against the corporation.
Maybe when I will migrate when I reach the big 5-0. At the very least I wont have to suffer any jibes.
In the previous paragraph, I deliberately used the word 'old' and not elderly, as the world 'old' is seldom used politely. It is quite rare for the word 'old' to be used sensitively, for instance 'old dear', but regularly compounded with an insult. Here are a just a few examples of the lovely phrases associated with the word 'old':-
Old git
Old codger
Old bastard
I could go on, but you get the picture.
Still, it is good to see that ageism is not institutionalised in this country - unless you ignore the fact that unemployed over-50s find it incredibly difficult to find work (link). Despite the BBC Panorama episode investigating this problem, let us not take too many lessons from the corporation since the BBC has recently suffered the indignity of having its ageist practices shamefully exposed when former Countryfile presenter Miriam O'Reilly won her employment tribunal against the corporation.
Maybe when I will migrate when I reach the big 5-0. At the very least I wont have to suffer any jibes.
Sunday 3 April 2011
More BBC cuts
An entertaining and highly amusing BBC special about Top of the Pops from the 1970s, screened earlier in the week, had me starting to think about cuts to the BBC again.
There needs to be no reminder this page constantly speaks out against the folly of excessive government cuts to the public sector based on ideological motivations. The BBC is quite different. Although it is a great British export, for example the World Service, the domestic product is a symbol of excess and waste.
BBC Three and Four are the worst examples of complete waste (yet the broadcaster wanted to take the knife to minority cultural interest radio stations such as the Asian Network and 6 Music) and I would get rid of both BBC Three and BBC Four. Some of the excellent programming that occasionally appears on BBC Four could easily be given airtime on BBC Two.
However, this week I have finally embraced repeats. After years of moaning about the things, I realised after watching the Top of the Pops repeat that they can be fun, special, nostalgic, and most importantly, cheap. The BBC must have a bulging archive (not including the material they have long lost) and it is time to put it to use.
Obviously the most interesting repeats would be those programmes unseen for a long time. Would we really want to see more repeats of Dad's Army? Do we really want to see repeats of programmes initially aired only months, weeks, or worse still, days before?
If done correctly, repeats would be interesting. How interesting would it be to watch old episodes of Tomorrow's World? It is time to stop paying excess money to provide vehicles for the same old faces and start reviving some of the quality material collecting dust in the archives.
There needs to be no reminder this page constantly speaks out against the folly of excessive government cuts to the public sector based on ideological motivations. The BBC is quite different. Although it is a great British export, for example the World Service, the domestic product is a symbol of excess and waste.
BBC Three and Four are the worst examples of complete waste (yet the broadcaster wanted to take the knife to minority cultural interest radio stations such as the Asian Network and 6 Music) and I would get rid of both BBC Three and BBC Four. Some of the excellent programming that occasionally appears on BBC Four could easily be given airtime on BBC Two.
However, this week I have finally embraced repeats. After years of moaning about the things, I realised after watching the Top of the Pops repeat that they can be fun, special, nostalgic, and most importantly, cheap. The BBC must have a bulging archive (not including the material they have long lost) and it is time to put it to use.
Obviously the most interesting repeats would be those programmes unseen for a long time. Would we really want to see more repeats of Dad's Army? Do we really want to see repeats of programmes initially aired only months, weeks, or worse still, days before?
If done correctly, repeats would be interesting. How interesting would it be to watch old episodes of Tomorrow's World? It is time to stop paying excess money to provide vehicles for the same old faces and start reviving some of the quality material collecting dust in the archives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)