Aggressive comments made by Adrian Beecroft about Vince Cable have overshadowed his report into employment reforms - and rightly so. His comments, using the word 'socialist' as an insult to describe Cable's concerns about his report, bring into focus the spite and vindictiveness that have been invested into his policy agenda. In essence, his actions have exposed the lack of objectivity influencing his report that the Tory-led government will use to guide employment policy.
The most controversial feature of his report, and the one that attracted Mr. Cable's critique which prompted the outburst, is its suggestion to make it easier for firms to sack employees. It is an indictment of present Tory thinking that at a time of economic difficulty and mass unemployment, reworking employment law to weaken the employment rights of those who are economically active is considered a priority.
The irony is Beecroft's claim that Cable's resistance to his report is ideological. This leads to two questions. Firstly, since when was 'ideology' - the science of ideas - used as a means of personal insult? Secondly, Beecroft's report has ideology running through it. In fact, it has class warfare running through it.
It is wrong for Beecroft to suggest that someone like Cable is unfit for office because they are daring to be hostile to a contentious part of a report. If anything, my fear was that many leading Liberal Democrats are not fit for office because they often failed to take a contrary position to the government line. Their roles ought to make coalition government a bit more of a challenge for the Tories in the coalition power dynamic.
Beecroft's venture capitalist company holds a stake in Wonga.com, the company that provides short-term 'pay-day' loans for the financially desperate at inflated interest rates. You could be forgiven for thinking his ideas seem to do more to create the next generation of Wonga.com customers than solve any red tape problems facing businesses. I struggle to understand how business rules that are a problem now were less of an issue when the economy was thriving and people had spare money (or at least spare low-interest credit) to spend. It appears another attempt to chip away at workers' rights.
It seems the Tories will back the findings of Beecroft regardless of his political unsubtlety. It is disappointing that the report is supported by our local MP Damian Collins. The only outcome of 'no-fault dismissal' will be to create greater job insecurity and uncertainty for families in Shepway, who are already struggling to make ends meet. These people, not just in Shepway but in the whole of Britain, deserve better.
Friday 25 May 2012
Monday 21 May 2012
Romney Marsh must not be Britain's nuclear dumping ground
Shepway District Council is proposing the construction of a nuclear waste disposal bunker in Romney Marsh. The proposed site would be a square kilometre at ground level, with the underground dump potentially as close as 200 metres from the surface. The proposal, if implemented, would render the area of amazing natural beauty a dumping ground for nuclear waste from throughout the country. This would represent a scar on the Romney Marsh landscape as well as creating a nuclear hazard for centuries to come.
The scheme has already been met with a great deal of political and local opposition. The argument put forward by the council is that the new construction would offset the loss of jobs when the Dungeness nuclear power stations are decommissioned. As a Labour member, more often than not I warmly welcome job creation initiatives, but not at a dangerously large environmental cost.
The Secretrary for the Folkestone and Hythe Labour Party, Peter Wallace, succinctly argues that the plan "shows the lack of ambition Shepway Council has for our area". We live in a wonderful eclectic region, with stunning landscapes, plenty of transport hubs and a lengthy coastline. There is scope for so much more creativity for the region.
Work on the dump would not be scheduled to begin until 2025 and the site would not be ready until 2040, so the dump would not address current problems. What could possibly be the incentive for such a scheme? This is not an easy question to answer without a healthy dose of cynicism. We should all see that it is highly selfish to believe the solution to today's economic and employment woes is to leave a gift for our children and grandchildren that they will not thank us for. According to the project's website, the land could be farmed after it has completed its working life, but it is hard to imagine anyone wanting to do so.
We have an assurance from Alistair Stewart, chief executive of Shepway District Council, that if the public reject the proposal then that will be the end of the proposal. There will be a consultation with local residents - thousands of newsletters have already been sent. It is difficult to expect people to respond to the question of "would you like a nuclear dump in your vicinity?" with anything other than the negative. In event of public rejection, do the proposals go into the dump instead of the hazardous nuclear waste, or do the councillors set to work on Plan B, making a further attempt to win support?
This proposal demonstrates the problem with a distinct lack of political plurality in the district. 44 of the 46 councillors in Shepway District Council are Conservatives. It is this dominance of the party in charge that allows them to propose the sort of developments that many other councils would not dare mention. The council's official claim to have 'no formal view' about the proposal is a cop-out. To have taken the trouble to launch a website, set up presentations and spent money on newsletters, all combine to imply a support for the scheme.
They are clearly willing to take a flutter on a positive outcome of their consultation. When this is considered in the context of their recent attempt to flood Shepway with parking meters, it is not surprising that at times it seems that every square metre of Shepway has its price. In future elections, the voters of Romney Marsh should not allow them to forget any of this.
Slightly more reassuring is that the idea has been criticised by the leader of Kent County Council, Paul Carter, as well as by local MP, Damian Collins. They can see the potential for lost votes throughout the county, as well as the prospect of towns and villages in Kent becoming transport gateways for nuclear waste. Furthermore, this is south-east England - not the middle of nowhere. Transporting highly radioactive waste through largely populated areas lacks the most basic of common sense.
Nuclear waste is not the answer to Shepway's employment woes. The best thing Shepway's councillors can do is to retreat from this proposal and return with an inspirational idea for regenerating the district.
Links:
Folkestone and Hythe Labour Party: http://www.shepwaylabour.org.uk
Proposal website: http://www.romneymarshnrdf.org.uk/
The scheme has already been met with a great deal of political and local opposition. The argument put forward by the council is that the new construction would offset the loss of jobs when the Dungeness nuclear power stations are decommissioned. As a Labour member, more often than not I warmly welcome job creation initiatives, but not at a dangerously large environmental cost.
The Secretrary for the Folkestone and Hythe Labour Party, Peter Wallace, succinctly argues that the plan "shows the lack of ambition Shepway Council has for our area". We live in a wonderful eclectic region, with stunning landscapes, plenty of transport hubs and a lengthy coastline. There is scope for so much more creativity for the region.
Work on the dump would not be scheduled to begin until 2025 and the site would not be ready until 2040, so the dump would not address current problems. What could possibly be the incentive for such a scheme? This is not an easy question to answer without a healthy dose of cynicism. We should all see that it is highly selfish to believe the solution to today's economic and employment woes is to leave a gift for our children and grandchildren that they will not thank us for. According to the project's website, the land could be farmed after it has completed its working life, but it is hard to imagine anyone wanting to do so.
We have an assurance from Alistair Stewart, chief executive of Shepway District Council, that if the public reject the proposal then that will be the end of the proposal. There will be a consultation with local residents - thousands of newsletters have already been sent. It is difficult to expect people to respond to the question of "would you like a nuclear dump in your vicinity?" with anything other than the negative. In event of public rejection, do the proposals go into the dump instead of the hazardous nuclear waste, or do the councillors set to work on Plan B, making a further attempt to win support?
This proposal demonstrates the problem with a distinct lack of political plurality in the district. 44 of the 46 councillors in Shepway District Council are Conservatives. It is this dominance of the party in charge that allows them to propose the sort of developments that many other councils would not dare mention. The council's official claim to have 'no formal view' about the proposal is a cop-out. To have taken the trouble to launch a website, set up presentations and spent money on newsletters, all combine to imply a support for the scheme.
They are clearly willing to take a flutter on a positive outcome of their consultation. When this is considered in the context of their recent attempt to flood Shepway with parking meters, it is not surprising that at times it seems that every square metre of Shepway has its price. In future elections, the voters of Romney Marsh should not allow them to forget any of this.
Slightly more reassuring is that the idea has been criticised by the leader of Kent County Council, Paul Carter, as well as by local MP, Damian Collins. They can see the potential for lost votes throughout the county, as well as the prospect of towns and villages in Kent becoming transport gateways for nuclear waste. Furthermore, this is south-east England - not the middle of nowhere. Transporting highly radioactive waste through largely populated areas lacks the most basic of common sense.
Nuclear waste is not the answer to Shepway's employment woes. The best thing Shepway's councillors can do is to retreat from this proposal and return with an inspirational idea for regenerating the district.
Links:
Folkestone and Hythe Labour Party: http://www.shepwaylabour.org.uk
Proposal website: http://www.romneymarshnrdf.org.uk/
Friday 18 May 2012
Warsi right to call for race debate on abuse case
I have never agreed with the Tories' mouthpiece, Baroness Warsi, on anything, but they allow her to speak so often it had to happen eventually. Warsi has made a huge and admirable statement on the subject of how white girls are perceived by a small minority of Pakistani men. The comments come following the jailing of nine men for abusing young girls in Rochdale. As a daughter of Pakistani migrants herself, it is a bold declaration.
It is also a declaration that treats the situation as it is - something that involves a minority, and therefore we must resist the temptation to treat it as a generalised problem. However, it is right to racialise the issue, not because the crimes were racially-driven per se, but because some of the debates surrounding the abuse have taken a potentially damaging racialised narrative already. The abuses have also taken place in the background context of racial difference.
I will be the first to admit that initially I set out to avoid reading the reports of what happened in Rochdale, such is my discomfort for reading about such matters. Having finally read the unsettling articles about what happened to those vulnerable young girls, it makes me despair at the state of British society at the moment.
Firstly, it does seem that young (white) British females are seen to be morally lacking, and, as some cynically see them, as 'fair game' for abuse. Although the crimes were sexual, rather than racial, it would seem undeniable that the offenders chose their victims carefully. The judge in the case, Gerald Clifton, cited a key reason was "they were not part of your community or religion," suggesting there may be community acceptance factors in play as well.
Secondly, and more significantly, it has been said that police knew about the abuse since 2002 but failed to act. The article reports that "[t]hey have now been accused of ignoring evidence of the rapes because they were frightened of being accused of racism." This is often the crux of the problem. The race and religion of the offenders mean they are allowed by stupid white people to continue their deviant behaviour unchallenged.
When the offenders were finally brought to justice, the procrastination of those people played straight into the hands of Nick Griffin and his BNP. Griffin is now on a points-scoring mission off the back of it, and has already called for a public inquiry. Well done, everyone.
Mainstream politicians often get a bad press, but on this issue there is a sensible discussion unfolding among parliamentarians. On one side of the debate, I can understand the sentiments of Keith Vaz MP that race should not be the issue (or, at least not the central issue, as I would argue). However, Warsi is correct that the offenders' decision to choose white girls cannot be treated as incidental. Either way, the outcome of any debate is that there must never again be fear to act on reports of such awful abuses.
It is also a declaration that treats the situation as it is - something that involves a minority, and therefore we must resist the temptation to treat it as a generalised problem. However, it is right to racialise the issue, not because the crimes were racially-driven per se, but because some of the debates surrounding the abuse have taken a potentially damaging racialised narrative already. The abuses have also taken place in the background context of racial difference.
I will be the first to admit that initially I set out to avoid reading the reports of what happened in Rochdale, such is my discomfort for reading about such matters. Having finally read the unsettling articles about what happened to those vulnerable young girls, it makes me despair at the state of British society at the moment.
Firstly, it does seem that young (white) British females are seen to be morally lacking, and, as some cynically see them, as 'fair game' for abuse. Although the crimes were sexual, rather than racial, it would seem undeniable that the offenders chose their victims carefully. The judge in the case, Gerald Clifton, cited a key reason was "they were not part of your community or religion," suggesting there may be community acceptance factors in play as well.
Secondly, and more significantly, it has been said that police knew about the abuse since 2002 but failed to act. The article reports that "[t]hey have now been accused of ignoring evidence of the rapes because they were frightened of being accused of racism." This is often the crux of the problem. The race and religion of the offenders mean they are allowed by stupid white people to continue their deviant behaviour unchallenged.
When the offenders were finally brought to justice, the procrastination of those people played straight into the hands of Nick Griffin and his BNP. Griffin is now on a points-scoring mission off the back of it, and has already called for a public inquiry. Well done, everyone.
Mainstream politicians often get a bad press, but on this issue there is a sensible discussion unfolding among parliamentarians. On one side of the debate, I can understand the sentiments of Keith Vaz MP that race should not be the issue (or, at least not the central issue, as I would argue). However, Warsi is correct that the offenders' decision to choose white girls cannot be treated as incidental. Either way, the outcome of any debate is that there must never again be fear to act on reports of such awful abuses.
Tuesday 15 May 2012
Premier League review: my thanks to City and United for an amazing season
What an end to the football season. What a story. Those two injury time goals for Manchester City, as they belatedly snatched the win they needed against Queens Park Rangers to win the Premier League title, was an incredible end to the most captivating football season in years. At that precise moment, the money poured into the club became a mere footnote. The story was bigger than that. It was a reminder the most important thing in football is what happens on the pitch, rather than in boardrooms.
It is for that reason the Newcastle fans have warmed to Alan Pardew, and have less to say about their controversial owner, Mike Ashley, than they once may have. It is for that reason the Blackburn fans despised Steve Kean and wanted him out, then went quiet for a bit when results picked up, before going into meltdown as they saw their Premier League status slip away.
Football is the people's game. It is a never ending story, of which a new chapter has just been completed and another is just starting. With that new chapter, it is also the first time in years that I want the next season to start straight away. Forget the play-off finals. Forget Euro 2012. Forget pre-season friendlies. I cannot wait for season 2012/13. I can only hope it is at least fractionally as good as the last.
Aguero's run which carved up the deep QPR defence, and his strike which won the title, will live in our memories for years. It concluded the closest finish to a top flight-season since 1989, a whole three years before football was officially invented by the FA Premier League in 1992 (yes, football did actually exist before then). 1989 was a bitter-sweet time to follow the game because of a mix of crowd disturbances and disaster with a more tactile and engaging experience as a fan. I never thought I would feel the excitement of a final day of any Premier League season as I did back in 1989.
That day, football was free on (and I am trusting my memory with this part) ITV. Furthermore, (and I am trusting my memory again here) the end of the season fixture between Liverpool and Arsenal was delayed due to Liverpool's piling up of fixtures following the Hillsborough disaster of the same year. English football needed the last day of the season to deliver, and deliver it did. Michael Thomas broke clear of the Liverpool defence to score a last minute goal for Arsenal which sent the title to Highbury.
A whole 23 years later, and the Premier League finally delivered the goods. Manchester City went into the final day of the season only needing to match Manchester United's score to win the title at the expense of their hated local rivals. United faced a tricky away visit to Sunderland. City faced relegation-threatened QPR at home. No surprise then that the United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, declared City as having "two hands on the title."
It was never going to be as simple as that. QPR themselves needed a result to make absolutely sure of the Premier League survival. United have a habit of succeeding in what Arsene Wenger described as the "money time" - a reference to the endgame when those with the winning mentality step up and triumph. This is equally as applicable to injury time in matches (often known as "Fergie time" due to Manchester United's tendency to get plenty of it in matches and grab winning results in this time) as it is to crucial points of the season.
City on the other hand had developed a losers' mentality during over 40 years of failure. They were the ones with the tendency to lose matches in Fergie time. They were the ones who had been to football's version of hell (League One, in today's money) and back. They were the ones with the uncanny ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. To put it simply, they were the complete opposite to their multi-title winning neighbours from Trafford. Out of this discourse emerges pessimism. This pessimism can on occasions transmit to players, even if they are reluctant to admit it. On the day of the title decider, the impression I got was City fans were cautious about their prospects of finally winning the league.
What they needed was an early goal. It never came. QPR had opted for a strategy where most of the players were not just camped in their own half, but in their own 18-yard box, with the hope that they might just snatch something at the other end during a rare breakaway. This stifled City. The fans' jitters were worsened by news that United had taken the lead at Sunderland. Those jitters were briefly calmed by a rare goal from Pablo Zabaleta in the 39th minute. His fizzy shot proved difficult to handle for QPR goalkeeper, Paddy Kenny, who could only flick it into the net. The news of the goal was transmitted to United support by the Sunderland fans gleefully singing "1-0 to the City boys," to the tune of Go West by The Village People.
The relief was short lived, as QPR regained parity early in the second half. Joleon Lescott did his Euro 2012 prospects no good whatsover with some poor defending which allowed Djibril Cisse to pounce and level the scores. City fans could not believe it. Manchester United fans could not believe it. I could not believe it. What was on paper a straightforward task for City became something altogether more complicated, in keeping with City tradition.
City seemed to get the space they desperately needed when Joey Barton decided to behave as Joey Barton does, by getting himself sent off under provocation from Carlos Tevez. Regardless of how much provocation was involved, punching and kicking anyone in sight is not the way to stay on a football field.
In typical City fashion, they proceeded to make beating a 10-man relegation battling outfit at home look difficult. QPR went further ahead in yet another rare attack, to the incredulity of fans on both sides of Manchester. The title was swinging United's way. Tears and despair started to rain down on Eastlands. As the match went into injury time, I brazenly tweeted my congratulations to United, and how the last day failure was so typically Manchester City and that QPR manager, Mark Hughes, had served his revenge stone cold on the club that sacked him. Then, came the unimaginable.
The two injury time goals by Edin Dzeko and Sergio Aguero formed the late twist that all good stories should have. Despair became delight for the City fans at Eastlands. Manchester City had won the title in the most exciting way imaginable, and won many new friends in the process. Years of negative energy were erased in three glorious minutes. For QPR, it was relief that results elsewhere had gone their way. Again, the news filtered through to United fans through phones, radios and gloating Sunderland supporters. In a show of maturity, Wayne Rooney was the first to acknowledge the terrific support of the United fans.
On one hand, I could not believe what I had witnessed. On the other hand, I was not completely shocked, because of the capability of The Beautiful Game to surprise and enthrall. It was clear then, I was still trying to comprehend the magnificence and the enormity of what had just occurred at Eastlands. Firstly, the anticipation of a new name on the Premier League trophy. Then, the unraveling of City and an indication that United were set to edge things yet again. Finally, the most memorable last five minutes of a football season. Many thanks to the entire cast that made the great show possible.
It is for that reason the Newcastle fans have warmed to Alan Pardew, and have less to say about their controversial owner, Mike Ashley, than they once may have. It is for that reason the Blackburn fans despised Steve Kean and wanted him out, then went quiet for a bit when results picked up, before going into meltdown as they saw their Premier League status slip away.
Football is the people's game. It is a never ending story, of which a new chapter has just been completed and another is just starting. With that new chapter, it is also the first time in years that I want the next season to start straight away. Forget the play-off finals. Forget Euro 2012. Forget pre-season friendlies. I cannot wait for season 2012/13. I can only hope it is at least fractionally as good as the last.
Aguero's run which carved up the deep QPR defence, and his strike which won the title, will live in our memories for years. It concluded the closest finish to a top flight-season since 1989, a whole three years before football was officially invented by the FA Premier League in 1992 (yes, football did actually exist before then). 1989 was a bitter-sweet time to follow the game because of a mix of crowd disturbances and disaster with a more tactile and engaging experience as a fan. I never thought I would feel the excitement of a final day of any Premier League season as I did back in 1989.
That day, football was free on (and I am trusting my memory with this part) ITV. Furthermore, (and I am trusting my memory again here) the end of the season fixture between Liverpool and Arsenal was delayed due to Liverpool's piling up of fixtures following the Hillsborough disaster of the same year. English football needed the last day of the season to deliver, and deliver it did. Michael Thomas broke clear of the Liverpool defence to score a last minute goal for Arsenal which sent the title to Highbury.
A whole 23 years later, and the Premier League finally delivered the goods. Manchester City went into the final day of the season only needing to match Manchester United's score to win the title at the expense of their hated local rivals. United faced a tricky away visit to Sunderland. City faced relegation-threatened QPR at home. No surprise then that the United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, declared City as having "two hands on the title."
It was never going to be as simple as that. QPR themselves needed a result to make absolutely sure of the Premier League survival. United have a habit of succeeding in what Arsene Wenger described as the "money time" - a reference to the endgame when those with the winning mentality step up and triumph. This is equally as applicable to injury time in matches (often known as "Fergie time" due to Manchester United's tendency to get plenty of it in matches and grab winning results in this time) as it is to crucial points of the season.
City on the other hand had developed a losers' mentality during over 40 years of failure. They were the ones with the tendency to lose matches in Fergie time. They were the ones who had been to football's version of hell (League One, in today's money) and back. They were the ones with the uncanny ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. To put it simply, they were the complete opposite to their multi-title winning neighbours from Trafford. Out of this discourse emerges pessimism. This pessimism can on occasions transmit to players, even if they are reluctant to admit it. On the day of the title decider, the impression I got was City fans were cautious about their prospects of finally winning the league.
What they needed was an early goal. It never came. QPR had opted for a strategy where most of the players were not just camped in their own half, but in their own 18-yard box, with the hope that they might just snatch something at the other end during a rare breakaway. This stifled City. The fans' jitters were worsened by news that United had taken the lead at Sunderland. Those jitters were briefly calmed by a rare goal from Pablo Zabaleta in the 39th minute. His fizzy shot proved difficult to handle for QPR goalkeeper, Paddy Kenny, who could only flick it into the net. The news of the goal was transmitted to United support by the Sunderland fans gleefully singing "1-0 to the City boys," to the tune of Go West by The Village People.
The relief was short lived, as QPR regained parity early in the second half. Joleon Lescott did his Euro 2012 prospects no good whatsover with some poor defending which allowed Djibril Cisse to pounce and level the scores. City fans could not believe it. Manchester United fans could not believe it. I could not believe it. What was on paper a straightforward task for City became something altogether more complicated, in keeping with City tradition.
City seemed to get the space they desperately needed when Joey Barton decided to behave as Joey Barton does, by getting himself sent off under provocation from Carlos Tevez. Regardless of how much provocation was involved, punching and kicking anyone in sight is not the way to stay on a football field.
In typical City fashion, they proceeded to make beating a 10-man relegation battling outfit at home look difficult. QPR went further ahead in yet another rare attack, to the incredulity of fans on both sides of Manchester. The title was swinging United's way. Tears and despair started to rain down on Eastlands. As the match went into injury time, I brazenly tweeted my congratulations to United, and how the last day failure was so typically Manchester City and that QPR manager, Mark Hughes, had served his revenge stone cold on the club that sacked him. Then, came the unimaginable.
The two injury time goals by Edin Dzeko and Sergio Aguero formed the late twist that all good stories should have. Despair became delight for the City fans at Eastlands. Manchester City had won the title in the most exciting way imaginable, and won many new friends in the process. Years of negative energy were erased in three glorious minutes. For QPR, it was relief that results elsewhere had gone their way. Again, the news filtered through to United fans through phones, radios and gloating Sunderland supporters. In a show of maturity, Wayne Rooney was the first to acknowledge the terrific support of the United fans.
On one hand, I could not believe what I had witnessed. On the other hand, I was not completely shocked, because of the capability of The Beautiful Game to surprise and enthrall. It was clear then, I was still trying to comprehend the magnificence and the enormity of what had just occurred at Eastlands. Firstly, the anticipation of a new name on the Premier League trophy. Then, the unraveling of City and an indication that United were set to edge things yet again. Finally, the most memorable last five minutes of a football season. Many thanks to the entire cast that made the great show possible.
Premier League review: Blackburn and Wolves get their desserts
Different clubs, different approaches and different incompetences - Blackburn Rovers and Wolverhampton Wanderers are this season's case studies of how not to run a football club. Both have been deservedly relegated from the Premier League and hopefully will not return any time soon. Football - and more saliently - their own fans, deserve better.
Early results for Wolves were promising, and the club looked set for an unusually comfortable season, without the looking over their shoulders that a typical Wolves season usually entails. Unfortunately, that was August, and by September results had reverted to type, and Wolves slid down the table fast.
The response from the Wolves board was to sack the manager Mick McCarthy, partly as a result of fans' pressure. Despite acting on the disappointment of supporters, the decision to sack McCarthy is now widely regarded as a mistake. Who got the blame? The fans? The players? No, the board got the blame, but rightly so. Fans pay their money to watch football and vent their frustration. The job of a football club's board is to act rationally. The decision by the Wolves board was anything but rational. Wolves were always set for a struggle, but the decision to sack McCarthy was carried out without a sufficient shortlist of replacements in mind.
Following McCarthy's sacking, there followed an embarrassing rigmarole which saw managers lined up for the role, then discounted on a near-daily basis. Steve Bruce was understood to be lined up, but something went wrong and in an act of throwing in the towel, Wolves decided to hand the job to one of the coaches, Terry Connor. As we are constantly reminded, he is 'a nice bloke' and has a good relationship with the players. Wolves have not won since.
As for Blackburn, well where do we start? The club has been a circus ever since it was taken over by 'The Venkys', whoever they may be. The Indian chicken traders who bought the club are even more rarely spotted than actual chickens around Ewood Park these days, such is the poisonous atmosphere that has engulfed the ground.
One of their first acts was to sack the solid - if unspectacular - manager, Sam Allardyce. As was the case with Wolves, they decided to promote an inexperienced number two to the role of manager. Results have been appalling ever since, with the occasional exception which meant that the mutiny around Ewood Park only reached full volume on Monday (7th May) when relegation was finally confirmed.
If the incompetence of the Wolves board was a hasty sacking without considering a replacement, the Blackburn board upstaged it by keeping their manager in charge far longer than plausible. Back in December, the atmosphere at Ewood Park was at its lowest point until this week, as Blackburn lost to local rivals Bolton. I have no doubt that the timing of their otherwise virtuous protests cost Blackburn the three points that day. However, that was also the time for the Blackburn owners to pull the plug on Steve Kean.
Looking back, excellent results that followed, such as the victory against Manchester United at Old Trafford were more about the players declaring what they were capable of if given a fair chance, rather than tacit support for their manager. Although hostilities ceased for a while, when a normalisation of the results returned so did the anger.
The inaction of the Blackburn board is indicative of their seeming lack of actual physical interest in getting involved with the club. The most destructive rumour that circulates is the question of how much they knew about promotion and relegation, and if this means of meritocratic movement in English football was even known to the Venkys.
If they did not know about the existence of relegation, there is some consolation for them - all relegated clubs are awarded a series of 'parachute payments' to ease the crashing fall to status and the finances a relegation can take.
Wolves and Blackburn can be summarised as contrasting styles of how their staff were handled. One club hit the panic button and effectively destroyed its structure; the other fiddled while the structure burned. In Reading and Southampton they will be replaced with two clubs that have built solid foundations on-the-pitch in recent years. This is just as well, because the Premier League is an unforgiving place for clubs that are run ineffectively.
Early results for Wolves were promising, and the club looked set for an unusually comfortable season, without the looking over their shoulders that a typical Wolves season usually entails. Unfortunately, that was August, and by September results had reverted to type, and Wolves slid down the table fast.
The response from the Wolves board was to sack the manager Mick McCarthy, partly as a result of fans' pressure. Despite acting on the disappointment of supporters, the decision to sack McCarthy is now widely regarded as a mistake. Who got the blame? The fans? The players? No, the board got the blame, but rightly so. Fans pay their money to watch football and vent their frustration. The job of a football club's board is to act rationally. The decision by the Wolves board was anything but rational. Wolves were always set for a struggle, but the decision to sack McCarthy was carried out without a sufficient shortlist of replacements in mind.
Following McCarthy's sacking, there followed an embarrassing rigmarole which saw managers lined up for the role, then discounted on a near-daily basis. Steve Bruce was understood to be lined up, but something went wrong and in an act of throwing in the towel, Wolves decided to hand the job to one of the coaches, Terry Connor. As we are constantly reminded, he is 'a nice bloke' and has a good relationship with the players. Wolves have not won since.
As for Blackburn, well where do we start? The club has been a circus ever since it was taken over by 'The Venkys', whoever they may be. The Indian chicken traders who bought the club are even more rarely spotted than actual chickens around Ewood Park these days, such is the poisonous atmosphere that has engulfed the ground.
One of their first acts was to sack the solid - if unspectacular - manager, Sam Allardyce. As was the case with Wolves, they decided to promote an inexperienced number two to the role of manager. Results have been appalling ever since, with the occasional exception which meant that the mutiny around Ewood Park only reached full volume on Monday (7th May) when relegation was finally confirmed.
If the incompetence of the Wolves board was a hasty sacking without considering a replacement, the Blackburn board upstaged it by keeping their manager in charge far longer than plausible. Back in December, the atmosphere at Ewood Park was at its lowest point until this week, as Blackburn lost to local rivals Bolton. I have no doubt that the timing of their otherwise virtuous protests cost Blackburn the three points that day. However, that was also the time for the Blackburn owners to pull the plug on Steve Kean.
Looking back, excellent results that followed, such as the victory against Manchester United at Old Trafford were more about the players declaring what they were capable of if given a fair chance, rather than tacit support for their manager. Although hostilities ceased for a while, when a normalisation of the results returned so did the anger.
The inaction of the Blackburn board is indicative of their seeming lack of actual physical interest in getting involved with the club. The most destructive rumour that circulates is the question of how much they knew about promotion and relegation, and if this means of meritocratic movement in English football was even known to the Venkys.
If they did not know about the existence of relegation, there is some consolation for them - all relegated clubs are awarded a series of 'parachute payments' to ease the crashing fall to status and the finances a relegation can take.
Wolves and Blackburn can be summarised as contrasting styles of how their staff were handled. One club hit the panic button and effectively destroyed its structure; the other fiddled while the structure burned. In Reading and Southampton they will be replaced with two clubs that have built solid foundations on-the-pitch in recent years. This is just as well, because the Premier League is an unforgiving place for clubs that are run ineffectively.
Sunday 6 May 2012
Vote 2012 review, complete with some risible myths
Almost 72 hours have passed since David Cameron's bleakest hour, which saw his party suffer heavy losses in the 2012 local elections. His Con-Dem partners, the Liberal Democrats, sustained a second round of heavy losses following a similar mauling twelve months ago. For the junior partners in the Con-Dem alliance, there was little in the way of comfort. The only comforting factor for Cameron seemed to be re-election of Boris Johnson as the Mayor of London.
However, this good news tidbit for Mr. Cameron may be a slight myth. If Cameron is rejoicing Johnson's victory in public (and Cameron needed something to be seen to cheer about), then privately he must be alarmed as to how Johnson has maintained such a level of popularity. Johnson's narrow victory over influential rival and seasoned campaigner Ken Livingstone was an impressive one in light of the level of animosity towards the present Tory-led government. Some may see this as a silver lining for Cameron, but the rise of brand Boris is something that has the potential to be troublesome to the Prime Minister in the future.
Another myth the Tories and their Con-Dem partners are trying to promote is the election result was a typical "mid-term kicking" being given to the governing parties. Not only is that claim highly disrespectful to all of those who exercised their democratic right to vote, but the opinion polling over recent weeks do not reflect these claims in any case.
Over recent months, Labour and the Conservatives have been closely matched in the polls. Many voters were uncomfortable with the speed and the scale of government cuts, but while the Tory-led Con-Dem government were able to coherently argue a desperate need for cuts, supporter numbers held up. Then came the budget which put money into the pockets of millionaires, the problem that is Jeremy Hunt, the under-reported assault on the NHS and various other acts of incompetence. Polls started revealing a shift towards Labour, giving them anything up to a 12 point lead. The Guardian's ICM poll had the Tories ahead by 3 points on the 18th March of this year. By the 22nd April, the same pollsters had Labour a comfortable 8 points ahead. Thursday's vote reflected the emerging gap, as the overall vote share suggested a 7 point triumph for Labour over the Tories.
Tories continue with the claim they are suffering for "cleaning up the mess they inherited" (they still do not realise this phrase is a vote-loser).The aforementioned polls suggest this is a complete fallacy, for it is those calamities involving Jeremy Hunt, the Murdochs, a self-inflicted fuel crisis and the budget that co-incided with plummeting poll ratings - all of which had more to do with creating mess rather than cleaning it up.
Some old-fashioned but highly influential Tories have complained Cameron is not 'conservative' enough, not right-wing enough and too liberal. Their argument is that parties like UKIP will continue to grow if the Tories do not move rightwards (unless your name is Warsi, then you imply that UKIP are mopping up estranged BNP voters). Some bitter backbenchers are delivering similar criticisms, and worryingly that means commentators are now actually taking the outbursts of Nadine Dorries seriously. Cameron himself has declared he will continue as he is, continuing to make those "tough" decisions, and presumably continuing to slide down the poll ratings.
His Tories could not even win in Chipping Norton. Labour's success in this area was laughed off as something ironic given the area being synonomous with Cameron and his News International pals. I would suggest the result is more reflective of the absolute embarrassment felt by local residents of the way their corner of the world has been brought into disrepute over the past twelve months. Also, as should be the case with local elections, there are also local difficulties that contributed to the result.
Cameron's management of both party and country does not lend itself to winning new voters anytime soon. Moving towards the right will not help either - voters already think their economic policies are too extreme and favour the top of society's food chain. That means Cameron's run of not being very good at winning elections is liable to continue. This is quite the opposite to a certain Boris Johnson, who for whatever reason seems to be well-regarded in London. The best advice for the Prime Minister should be to keep looking over his shoulder.
However, this good news tidbit for Mr. Cameron may be a slight myth. If Cameron is rejoicing Johnson's victory in public (and Cameron needed something to be seen to cheer about), then privately he must be alarmed as to how Johnson has maintained such a level of popularity. Johnson's narrow victory over influential rival and seasoned campaigner Ken Livingstone was an impressive one in light of the level of animosity towards the present Tory-led government. Some may see this as a silver lining for Cameron, but the rise of brand Boris is something that has the potential to be troublesome to the Prime Minister in the future.
Another myth the Tories and their Con-Dem partners are trying to promote is the election result was a typical "mid-term kicking" being given to the governing parties. Not only is that claim highly disrespectful to all of those who exercised their democratic right to vote, but the opinion polling over recent weeks do not reflect these claims in any case.
Over recent months, Labour and the Conservatives have been closely matched in the polls. Many voters were uncomfortable with the speed and the scale of government cuts, but while the Tory-led Con-Dem government were able to coherently argue a desperate need for cuts, supporter numbers held up. Then came the budget which put money into the pockets of millionaires, the problem that is Jeremy Hunt, the under-reported assault on the NHS and various other acts of incompetence. Polls started revealing a shift towards Labour, giving them anything up to a 12 point lead. The Guardian's ICM poll had the Tories ahead by 3 points on the 18th March of this year. By the 22nd April, the same pollsters had Labour a comfortable 8 points ahead. Thursday's vote reflected the emerging gap, as the overall vote share suggested a 7 point triumph for Labour over the Tories.
Tories continue with the claim they are suffering for "cleaning up the mess they inherited" (they still do not realise this phrase is a vote-loser).The aforementioned polls suggest this is a complete fallacy, for it is those calamities involving Jeremy Hunt, the Murdochs, a self-inflicted fuel crisis and the budget that co-incided with plummeting poll ratings - all of which had more to do with creating mess rather than cleaning it up.
Some old-fashioned but highly influential Tories have complained Cameron is not 'conservative' enough, not right-wing enough and too liberal. Their argument is that parties like UKIP will continue to grow if the Tories do not move rightwards (unless your name is Warsi, then you imply that UKIP are mopping up estranged BNP voters). Some bitter backbenchers are delivering similar criticisms, and worryingly that means commentators are now actually taking the outbursts of Nadine Dorries seriously. Cameron himself has declared he will continue as he is, continuing to make those "tough" decisions, and presumably continuing to slide down the poll ratings.
His Tories could not even win in Chipping Norton. Labour's success in this area was laughed off as something ironic given the area being synonomous with Cameron and his News International pals. I would suggest the result is more reflective of the absolute embarrassment felt by local residents of the way their corner of the world has been brought into disrepute over the past twelve months. Also, as should be the case with local elections, there are also local difficulties that contributed to the result.
Cameron's management of both party and country does not lend itself to winning new voters anytime soon. Moving towards the right will not help either - voters already think their economic policies are too extreme and favour the top of society's food chain. That means Cameron's run of not being very good at winning elections is liable to continue. This is quite the opposite to a certain Boris Johnson, who for whatever reason seems to be well-regarded in London. The best advice for the Prime Minister should be to keep looking over his shoulder.
Tuesday 1 May 2012
Murdoch crisis has exposed Cameron's unelectability and Tory dependence on his press
Whatever the outcome of the Leveson inquiry into media standards, and the many other investigations into the conduct of News Corporation, one thing for certain is the Tories will emerge with their reputations battered. Although David Cameron's asserts that all parties got too close to the Rupert Murdoch machine, there is no doubt the Tories are coming away with more muck on them than the others. It is hardly a surprise - they have showed themselves to be the party of the few and out of touch with the many.
The phone-hacking scandal and the subsequent fallout relating to Murdoch's undemocratic influence in Britain, is the gift that keeps on giving. This week, the Prime Minister resorted to personal jibes in the House of Commons, targeting veteran MP Dennis Skinner with a legally dubious remark about his age. This is because he had no robust defence of Skinner's question about Jeremy Hunt being given more employment protection by the PM than the average worker gets.
Past Labour Prime Ministers may have tried to gain some of that Murdoch stardust, but this is hardly surprising given the supposed impact his populist paper had on their 1992 election defeat. However, it is becoming clear some serious back-scratching must have occurred for Cameron to get such Murdoch support for the 2010 election (not to mention the fact the BBC and Sky News coverage of the election was also very unfriendly towards Gordon Brown). Cameron's Tories certainly need these media giants: the unelectable one still could not win an election off the back of almost universal media support, and had to beg Parliament's biggest bunch of chameleons to form a working majority. Embarrassing.
The list of Murdoch-related calamities so early in his tenure as PM reflects badly on Cameron, and he knows it. Firstly, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, was recruited by Cameron, despite having to resign due to phone-hacking concerns as early as 2007. Following his necessary resignation as Cameron's communications director, he was arrested by police investigating the phone-hacking scandal.
Secondly, there is the question of David Cameron's own links with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks. It has now claimed that he DID discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch - something that had been repeatedly denied.
Thirdly, Cameron is developing a fast-growing reputation as notoriously inefficient when it comes to sacking ministers who are clearly on borrowed time. First Liam Fox, now Jeremy Hunt - it is not good enough. Jeremy Hunt's office faces an onslaught due to its underhand support for the Murdoch's bid for BSkyB. The way Vince Cable was shifted from his role in assessing the BSkyB bid in favour of someone whose office have apparent Murdoch sympathies is suspicious to say the least.
Finally, it has emerged today that four Conservatives wasted their time sitting on the Culture Committee to question journalists. They refused to endorse the report that followed, dismissing it as "partisan" because it reached the conclusion Rupert Murdoch "is not fit to run not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". This is the same Murdoch who either would not or could not do anything about systematic phone-hacking at one of his newspapers. As the Coulson example above demonstrates, the phone-hacking has been in the background since at least 2007. This will do nothing to extinguish the heat that is rising against the Tories, or the suspicion that they represent the wealthy, the elite and powerhouses like the Murdoch machine. It simply adds to the distaste of the saga.
Hopefully voters will find recent Tory performances equally as distasteful on May 3rd.
The phone-hacking scandal and the subsequent fallout relating to Murdoch's undemocratic influence in Britain, is the gift that keeps on giving. This week, the Prime Minister resorted to personal jibes in the House of Commons, targeting veteran MP Dennis Skinner with a legally dubious remark about his age. This is because he had no robust defence of Skinner's question about Jeremy Hunt being given more employment protection by the PM than the average worker gets.
Past Labour Prime Ministers may have tried to gain some of that Murdoch stardust, but this is hardly surprising given the supposed impact his populist paper had on their 1992 election defeat. However, it is becoming clear some serious back-scratching must have occurred for Cameron to get such Murdoch support for the 2010 election (not to mention the fact the BBC and Sky News coverage of the election was also very unfriendly towards Gordon Brown). Cameron's Tories certainly need these media giants: the unelectable one still could not win an election off the back of almost universal media support, and had to beg Parliament's biggest bunch of chameleons to form a working majority. Embarrassing.
The list of Murdoch-related calamities so early in his tenure as PM reflects badly on Cameron, and he knows it. Firstly, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, was recruited by Cameron, despite having to resign due to phone-hacking concerns as early as 2007. Following his necessary resignation as Cameron's communications director, he was arrested by police investigating the phone-hacking scandal.
Secondly, there is the question of David Cameron's own links with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks. It has now claimed that he DID discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch - something that had been repeatedly denied.
Thirdly, Cameron is developing a fast-growing reputation as notoriously inefficient when it comes to sacking ministers who are clearly on borrowed time. First Liam Fox, now Jeremy Hunt - it is not good enough. Jeremy Hunt's office faces an onslaught due to its underhand support for the Murdoch's bid for BSkyB. The way Vince Cable was shifted from his role in assessing the BSkyB bid in favour of someone whose office have apparent Murdoch sympathies is suspicious to say the least.
Finally, it has emerged today that four Conservatives wasted their time sitting on the Culture Committee to question journalists. They refused to endorse the report that followed, dismissing it as "partisan" because it reached the conclusion Rupert Murdoch "is not fit to run not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". This is the same Murdoch who either would not or could not do anything about systematic phone-hacking at one of his newspapers. As the Coulson example above demonstrates, the phone-hacking has been in the background since at least 2007. This will do nothing to extinguish the heat that is rising against the Tories, or the suspicion that they represent the wealthy, the elite and powerhouses like the Murdoch machine. It simply adds to the distaste of the saga.
Hopefully voters will find recent Tory performances equally as distasteful on May 3rd.
Welcome to Roy Hodgson - Good choice for new England manager
The media's favourite for the England manager job, Harry Redknapp, has been overlooked for the role in favour of West Bromwich Albion boss, Roy Hodgson. As a consequence, quite a few toys have been pinging out of prams in some media institutions and in parts of Liverpool.
The depressingly predictable reaction was led by the Liverpudlian critics of the media. BBC Radio Five Live was producing interviews, with 'objective' Merseysiders sought for their opinions. Further noise was being made by the station about Hodgson being good for average teams punching above their weight and little else - perfect for England then!
Hodgson is a risky, but brave choice. As with Harry Redknapp, he has been managing for around three decades, mainly giving the smaller outfits a taste of the big time. Neither have set the world alight, and this parallel not be forgotten. For every one person who remembers how everything went wrong for Hodgson at Liverpool, how many remember Harry Redknapp's tenure at Southampton?
The top candidates were Arsene Wenger (who could do with one last challenge), Jose Mourinho (though now likely to stay at Madrid) and Pep Guardiola (depending on how serious he is about a break from the game). These are managers who have constantly achieved. If England is as great as the implied arrogance wishes us to believe, when people suggest that Hodgson is not right for the job because he is seen to fail with the very best, these are the managers we should be looking towards.
Hodgson is a good enough choice for England, though whether he will be given the chance, or whether (as with at Liverpool) minds are made up already, is anyone's guess. If it is the latter, then I have no desire to watch the miserable unfolding of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The one reason above all why Hodgson is good enough is because he is not the man the current senior players in the England squad wanted. I cannot say I have a great deal of warmth towards the modern day footballer, and any moment when they do not get their own way is a victory in my eyes. If we have nothing else, we have a manager who will not suck up, nor be intimidated, by the likes of Terry, Lampard, Ferdinand (Rio), Gerrard, Rooney and others, who have done absolutely nothing of note in their England careers.
Good luck as England manager, Roy.
The depressingly predictable reaction was led by the Liverpudlian critics of the media. BBC Radio Five Live was producing interviews, with 'objective' Merseysiders sought for their opinions. Further noise was being made by the station about Hodgson being good for average teams punching above their weight and little else - perfect for England then!
Hodgson is a risky, but brave choice. As with Harry Redknapp, he has been managing for around three decades, mainly giving the smaller outfits a taste of the big time. Neither have set the world alight, and this parallel not be forgotten. For every one person who remembers how everything went wrong for Hodgson at Liverpool, how many remember Harry Redknapp's tenure at Southampton?
The top candidates were Arsene Wenger (who could do with one last challenge), Jose Mourinho (though now likely to stay at Madrid) and Pep Guardiola (depending on how serious he is about a break from the game). These are managers who have constantly achieved. If England is as great as the implied arrogance wishes us to believe, when people suggest that Hodgson is not right for the job because he is seen to fail with the very best, these are the managers we should be looking towards.
Hodgson is a good enough choice for England, though whether he will be given the chance, or whether (as with at Liverpool) minds are made up already, is anyone's guess. If it is the latter, then I have no desire to watch the miserable unfolding of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The one reason above all why Hodgson is good enough is because he is not the man the current senior players in the England squad wanted. I cannot say I have a great deal of warmth towards the modern day footballer, and any moment when they do not get their own way is a victory in my eyes. If we have nothing else, we have a manager who will not suck up, nor be intimidated, by the likes of Terry, Lampard, Ferdinand (Rio), Gerrard, Rooney and others, who have done absolutely nothing of note in their England careers.
Good luck as England manager, Roy.
No pride in how we manage our water supply
Ever since the day it was announced that parts of Britain were facing a drought, it seems to have rained relentlessly. Now parts of Britain are facing flooding.
The drought warnings and the hosepipe bans are now coupled with the threat of having to use sandbags to protect property from floods. Water companies are going to great pains, in addition to rather unhelpful messages discouraging hygiene, to remind people that the drought threat remains.
It is understood that one month of almost incessant rain is going to do little to make up for a two year shortfall in rainfall, but the message from the water companies remains warped.
Try explaining to people who live in the driest parts of America, that a country like this one ever has to place restrictions on its water supply. We do not hear much about leaky pipes anymore. It would be interesting to learn how much of our water supply vanishes in that way.
The key question is whether we should trust privatised water companies to invest in the infrastructure. The drought we face is partly down to the dry winters, but to be facing a drought concurrently with the risk of floods says a lot about the way this country manages its water supply.
The drought warnings and the hosepipe bans are now coupled with the threat of having to use sandbags to protect property from floods. Water companies are going to great pains, in addition to rather unhelpful messages discouraging hygiene, to remind people that the drought threat remains.
It is understood that one month of almost incessant rain is going to do little to make up for a two year shortfall in rainfall, but the message from the water companies remains warped.
Try explaining to people who live in the driest parts of America, that a country like this one ever has to place restrictions on its water supply. We do not hear much about leaky pipes anymore. It would be interesting to learn how much of our water supply vanishes in that way.
The key question is whether we should trust privatised water companies to invest in the infrastructure. The drought we face is partly down to the dry winters, but to be facing a drought concurrently with the risk of floods says a lot about the way this country manages its water supply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)