As we approach the end of the year, I've come to the decision that after 8 years, I'm going to bring the curtain down on my blog Newspotting.
It's something I've been thinking about for a while now. I've realised that in the last couple of years the output of blogs I've been writing has been steadly decreasing.
This has mainly been due to the fact that I'm now a professional content writer. Spending all day in an office writing about complex and technical subject matters such as banking regulation and financial technology has meant I have not always had the motivation or energy to write about topical news stories.
What I've learned from blogging
I started my blog during my time studying for my post-grad in news paper journalism. My tutor advised me that having a blog would be a great way of promoting myself as a writer and developing my written skills. He was 100% right.
One of the great things about having a blog is that you can look back and analyse your old posts. Sometimes I don't always like my early blogs. I could have written some of them better. The grammar and punctuation wasn't as good as I would like it to be.
What's great is that I can see a progression and development in my writing. In particular how I express myself and the thoughts and themes I wanted to highlight.
This is the important point. Writing is like learning to play an instrument or training in a particular sport. You can have natural talent and ability but to hone and develop your skills, you have to rely on good old fashioned practice. This is what having a blog has allowed me to do and why it has been such a valuable experience for me.
My blog helped me secure some freelance writing work in 2013, and having that experience helped me make the career change I was looking for when I became a full time writer working in marketing in 2014.
Leaving a digital footprint
Back in 2009 blogging had already become an established form of social media, and I quickly decided to incorporate the microblogging site of Twitter into my site to help promote my writing abilities.
Since then, posting your thoughts and comments on blogs and social media sites has become a way of life for many of us. We're encouraged to express our thoughts, feelings and opinions to the outside world.
There has of course been consequences to this. We routinely hear reports of politicians, celebrities and public figures who have posted comments online in the past, normally before they became more high profile figures.
Embarrassing or offensive comments which in the past would have remained private are now in the public domain. This is causing serious problems for individuals who have been forced to resign from their jobs or apologise for their online behaviour.
I don't think this is a particularly good development. Our thoughts and opinions change through life. Are we going to punish or prevent people from holding jobs in say politics based on tweets and posts made when they were teenagers or before they entered a particular profession?
I've thought about my own blog and whether some of my views and opinions could potentially cause problems for me in the future. I'd like to think not. It's a blog, you need to express opinions and reveal your character and personality.
Not everyone will agree with everything I have written. I'm also aware that as a blogger I'm publishing in the public domain. I do however feel confident that what I have written is not offensive or libellous.
The end for now
I still love keeping up to date with major news stories and events. Who can't help but be fascinated by the ongoing car crash that Donald Trump's Presidency is proving to be.
With that thought in mind I may still get the urge to write something down when a major news story breaks - so watch this space.
All that's left to say is thank you to all those of you that have ever spent time reading my blog; and if you're someone who has just discovered Newspotting, feel free to look back on some of my old blogs.
Goodbye and thanks!
Thursday, 28 December 2017
Friday, 27 October 2017
Catalan independence: What will Catalonia gain?
When I think about my favourite European cities, there is only one city which always comes out on top. Barcelona.
I love Barcelona, it's almost the perfect the city. You have the mountains, the sea. Beautiful architecture, an historic Medieval quarter, great bars and restaurants and a successful and glamorous football team. It has everything I want from a city.
I've naturally taken a great interest in the referendum vote and the declaration of Catalan independence by the President of Catalonia Carles Puigdemont. The question that dominates my thinking about the crisis is this: What does Catalonia expect to gain from independence?
Catalonia is the richest region in the Spain. I remember back in 2001 I spent two weeks in the city studying Spanish. One afternoon after my lessons had finished I got chatting to an English guy in a Tapas bar on Las Ramblas.
He lived in the Pyrenees and had come down to Barcelona for the day. He explained to me how Barcelona and the Basque country are the two richest regions in Spain. Many people emigrate from other parts of Spain to Barcelona.
Catalans he said had a reputation for being a bit 'stuck up' they think they're better than other people in Spain. Only a few weeks ago I read something similar from the Times journalist John Carlin. He argued that Catalans aren't snobby they're just reserved in comparison to other regions of Spain.
Unlike in this country, Spain is a more federalised and de-centralised state. Different regions have autonomous control which have been significant features of the country since the end of Franco's dictatorship in the 1970s. From an outsiders point of view Catalonia has vast regional powers which they now appear to have lost as a result of this referendum.
Catalonia seems very good at telling a story that they are an oppressed people. I studied Spanish history at university and I have a book about the history of Barcelona FC by Jimmy Burns which talks about the political oppression Catalans suffered during the civil war and under Franco's dictatorship. The question now is whether this history of oppression still rings true today.
Both the Madrid government under Mariano Rajoy and Carles Puigdemont must take equal responsibility for the crisis. Unlike the UK's Scottish referendum, Catalonia's was illegal and with a turnout of only 43%. 90% who voted may have voted for independence but with such a low turnout, I don't understand how Catalan separatists can claim they have a true mandate for independence.
However, the government and Mariano Rajoy's reaction was totally over the top. Why not just ignore the result and say it has no legality, rather than cracking down on independence demonstrators and thereby falling into the role of the centralised Spanish state bad guys. Surely that's what Catalan nationalists want?
The impression that Catalan nationalists give is that they are a nation being held back by the rest of Spain. They think of themselves as being more sophisticated and European than the rest of Spain. There's no doubt that the recession in recent years and issues over tax distribution have played a part in fuelling the separatist cause and the notion that Catalonia will flourish under independence.
What's needed is better dialogue between Madrid and Barcelona and agreements on the level of economic and political power that Catalonia should have.
This crisis has echoes of Brexit here in this country. It's a movement based very much on passion and emotion. Sadly for supporters of Catalan independence, I struggle to see what the economic and political benefits of independence will be for ordinary Catalans.
I love Barcelona, it's almost the perfect the city. You have the mountains, the sea. Beautiful architecture, an historic Medieval quarter, great bars and restaurants and a successful and glamorous football team. It has everything I want from a city.
I've naturally taken a great interest in the referendum vote and the declaration of Catalan independence by the President of Catalonia Carles Puigdemont. The question that dominates my thinking about the crisis is this: What does Catalonia expect to gain from independence?
Catalonia is the richest region in the Spain. I remember back in 2001 I spent two weeks in the city studying Spanish. One afternoon after my lessons had finished I got chatting to an English guy in a Tapas bar on Las Ramblas.
He lived in the Pyrenees and had come down to Barcelona for the day. He explained to me how Barcelona and the Basque country are the two richest regions in Spain. Many people emigrate from other parts of Spain to Barcelona.
Catalans he said had a reputation for being a bit 'stuck up' they think they're better than other people in Spain. Only a few weeks ago I read something similar from the Times journalist John Carlin. He argued that Catalans aren't snobby they're just reserved in comparison to other regions of Spain.
Unlike in this country, Spain is a more federalised and de-centralised state. Different regions have autonomous control which have been significant features of the country since the end of Franco's dictatorship in the 1970s. From an outsiders point of view Catalonia has vast regional powers which they now appear to have lost as a result of this referendum.
Catalonia seems very good at telling a story that they are an oppressed people. I studied Spanish history at university and I have a book about the history of Barcelona FC by Jimmy Burns which talks about the political oppression Catalans suffered during the civil war and under Franco's dictatorship. The question now is whether this history of oppression still rings true today.
Both the Madrid government under Mariano Rajoy and Carles Puigdemont must take equal responsibility for the crisis. Unlike the UK's Scottish referendum, Catalonia's was illegal and with a turnout of only 43%. 90% who voted may have voted for independence but with such a low turnout, I don't understand how Catalan separatists can claim they have a true mandate for independence.
However, the government and Mariano Rajoy's reaction was totally over the top. Why not just ignore the result and say it has no legality, rather than cracking down on independence demonstrators and thereby falling into the role of the centralised Spanish state bad guys. Surely that's what Catalan nationalists want?
The impression that Catalan nationalists give is that they are a nation being held back by the rest of Spain. They think of themselves as being more sophisticated and European than the rest of Spain. There's no doubt that the recession in recent years and issues over tax distribution have played a part in fuelling the separatist cause and the notion that Catalonia will flourish under independence.
What's needed is better dialogue between Madrid and Barcelona and agreements on the level of economic and political power that Catalonia should have.
This crisis has echoes of Brexit here in this country. It's a movement based very much on passion and emotion. Sadly for supporters of Catalan independence, I struggle to see what the economic and political benefits of independence will be for ordinary Catalans.
Saturday, 14 October 2017
Harvey Weinstein: The culture that sustained his behaviour for so long needs to change.
It's been incredible to watch the total collapse of Harvey Weinstein's personal and professional reputation over the last few weeks.
When you discover that his behaviour of sexual harassment against women has been an open secret in Hollywood for years, your first reaction is to think why was it allowed to continue for so long and why now are people speaking out.
In many respects this story isn't that shocking. You have a powerful and influential man in a glamorous industry who takes advantage of that power and influence to prey on and sexually harass women. The spotlight at the moment is on the movie industry but we all know that the culture of sexual harassment exists in many other industries and professions.
It's this culture that ultimately needs to change. Certainly in respects of Hollywood you need more women in positions of power and influence whether its directors and movie executives. You also need both men and women to change attitudes and behaviour. The sense of entitlement that men can feel towards women has to change and women must be made to feel comfortable and confident in raising issues of sexual harassment.
Weinstein was allowed to continue with his behaviour due to a culture where people were afraid to speak out, fearful of the negative impact it would have on their own careers. But there is also the legal and public relations power that Weinstein held which meant that many of the stories known about him could be suppressed and unknown to the wider public.
In following this story, two of the best and most interesting articles I've read were in the The New Yorker and the celebrity gossip website Popbitch.
I love reading the New Yorker. They always provide real detailed analysis on the topics they report on. This is exactly what they've done with this report on Weinstein that highlights just how consistent and systematic his bevaviour has been over the last 25 years.
From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories
The article I read in Popbitch talks about the role that newspapers, magazines and online outlets play in maintaining a culture within the entertainment industry that allows sexual harassment to go unchallenged.
I thought this was an interesting point as when stories like this emerge it's natural that you wonder why nothing was reported earlier. Popbitch provide some answers to this question.
Inches for Inches
Have a read, you should find them interesting.
When you discover that his behaviour of sexual harassment against women has been an open secret in Hollywood for years, your first reaction is to think why was it allowed to continue for so long and why now are people speaking out.
In many respects this story isn't that shocking. You have a powerful and influential man in a glamorous industry who takes advantage of that power and influence to prey on and sexually harass women. The spotlight at the moment is on the movie industry but we all know that the culture of sexual harassment exists in many other industries and professions.
It's this culture that ultimately needs to change. Certainly in respects of Hollywood you need more women in positions of power and influence whether its directors and movie executives. You also need both men and women to change attitudes and behaviour. The sense of entitlement that men can feel towards women has to change and women must be made to feel comfortable and confident in raising issues of sexual harassment.
Weinstein was allowed to continue with his behaviour due to a culture where people were afraid to speak out, fearful of the negative impact it would have on their own careers. But there is also the legal and public relations power that Weinstein held which meant that many of the stories known about him could be suppressed and unknown to the wider public.
In following this story, two of the best and most interesting articles I've read were in the The New Yorker and the celebrity gossip website Popbitch.
I love reading the New Yorker. They always provide real detailed analysis on the topics they report on. This is exactly what they've done with this report on Weinstein that highlights just how consistent and systematic his bevaviour has been over the last 25 years.
From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories
The article I read in Popbitch talks about the role that newspapers, magazines and online outlets play in maintaining a culture within the entertainment industry that allows sexual harassment to go unchallenged.
I thought this was an interesting point as when stories like this emerge it's natural that you wonder why nothing was reported earlier. Popbitch provide some answers to this question.
Inches for Inches
Have a read, you should find them interesting.
Wednesday, 16 August 2017
India's independence: The story of Partition
During the last week, I've been reading a few magazine articles to commemorate the 70th anniversary of India's independence. There's also been a number of documentaries on the BBC featuring British Asian's whose family were directly affected by the events of Partition.
India's independence in 1947 and the creation of Pakistan is one of those stories that I've always been aware of but reading and listening to people's stories made me realise it's a story we don't hear enough about.
Partition isn't simply an event from India's history, it's very much British history as well. Sadly it's a story from the 20th Century which is overlooked. We're constantly reminded of events from the Second World War but the start of Britain's loss of Empire remains unfamiliar to many.
What stands out for me is the loss of life and religous violence that took place in the lead up to independence. Partition created a newly independent Muslim dominated Pakistan while India remained mainly Hindu dominated.
It meant that Hindus and Sikhs who found themselves on the wrong side of the partition line living in what would become Pakistan had to migrate to the new independent India. Meanwhile Muslims living in India made a similar journey in the opposite direction to Pakistan.
During this process millions of people lost their lives as religious sectarian violence escalated. I read really sad interviews with survivors of the violence who are now living in the UK. Despite the years that have passed, many still found it hard to forgive.
One Muslim women interviewed in the Sunday Times found it hard to understand how her grandchildren could be friends with Hindus and Sikhs. There were similar stories from Hindus who could not forgive Muslims.
What I find so shocking is that before independence, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims lived side by side for generations in peace. Then suddenly in the space of a matter of months these same people began murdering each other!
Here in Britain in 2017 we like to think we live in a peaceful, civilised and secure society. Different religious and ethnic groups don't go around killing one another. What's worrying is that none us truly know how close we all are to descending into mass violence and murder should circumstances change.
Britain's role in India's independence story doesn't make great reading. It seems that with the end of the Second World War and the country exhausted and bankrupt, we couldn't wait to get out of India.
In the interwar years of the 1920 and 30s as India's independence movement grew in strength, it seems Britain played a role in encouraging greater religious divisions - the old divide and rule strategy.
There's no doubt that fostering religious difference and tensions helped create the conditions that led to so much violence and suffering. Having created this tension, Britain was quick to let India and Pakistan deal with this violence as Britain brought an end to 300 years of rule in India.
India's independence in 1947 and the creation of Pakistan is one of those stories that I've always been aware of but reading and listening to people's stories made me realise it's a story we don't hear enough about.
Partition isn't simply an event from India's history, it's very much British history as well. Sadly it's a story from the 20th Century which is overlooked. We're constantly reminded of events from the Second World War but the start of Britain's loss of Empire remains unfamiliar to many.
What stands out for me is the loss of life and religous violence that took place in the lead up to independence. Partition created a newly independent Muslim dominated Pakistan while India remained mainly Hindu dominated.
It meant that Hindus and Sikhs who found themselves on the wrong side of the partition line living in what would become Pakistan had to migrate to the new independent India. Meanwhile Muslims living in India made a similar journey in the opposite direction to Pakistan.
During this process millions of people lost their lives as religious sectarian violence escalated. I read really sad interviews with survivors of the violence who are now living in the UK. Despite the years that have passed, many still found it hard to forgive.
One Muslim women interviewed in the Sunday Times found it hard to understand how her grandchildren could be friends with Hindus and Sikhs. There were similar stories from Hindus who could not forgive Muslims.
What I find so shocking is that before independence, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims lived side by side for generations in peace. Then suddenly in the space of a matter of months these same people began murdering each other!
Here in Britain in 2017 we like to think we live in a peaceful, civilised and secure society. Different religious and ethnic groups don't go around killing one another. What's worrying is that none us truly know how close we all are to descending into mass violence and murder should circumstances change.
Britain's role in India's independence story doesn't make great reading. It seems that with the end of the Second World War and the country exhausted and bankrupt, we couldn't wait to get out of India.
In the interwar years of the 1920 and 30s as India's independence movement grew in strength, it seems Britain played a role in encouraging greater religious divisions - the old divide and rule strategy.
There's no doubt that fostering religious difference and tensions helped create the conditions that led to so much violence and suffering. Having created this tension, Britain was quick to let India and Pakistan deal with this violence as Britain brought an end to 300 years of rule in India.
Monday, 14 August 2017
World Athletics Championships: Goodbye to two legends
Dramatic is the best word to describe the final night of the World Athletics Championships in London yesterday.
From the joy of watching a quite brilliant gold medal performance by the British Men's 4x100 relay team to the sad sight of seeing Usain Bolt pull up injured as he attempted to complete the final leg in his last ever race for the Jamaican team.
It was one race and one championship too far for Bolt but as Michael Johnson said in the BBC studio he didn't need to turn up to these Championships. He had nothing else to prove but I'm sure the appeal of finishing his career in front of a packed stadium in London was one of the motivating factors in him running again.
The same could be said for Mo Farah. In the last 7 years I don't think I've enjoyed watching 5 and 10,000m races as much with Mo at his best. It was hard effort to win gold in the 10,000m final and again in the 5,000 you just felt this a race too far. It shouldn't be overlooked that he still won silver but it felt strange seeing him not win the gold.
Usain Bolt and Mo Farah are not only my two favourite athletic stars they are two of my favourite sports stars. I feel fortunate and privileged that I've seen both of them run live over the last few years at the Olympic stadium. They will be hugely missed.
The future of athletics
We've listened to so many people talk about where athletics will go now that it has lost its biggest star in Usain Bolt. No matter how great an individual, every sport has to and will carry on. You might as well ask the same question of tennis when Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray retire. Or football when Messi and Ronaldo are no longer playing. Ultimately athletics and other sports go on and new stars emerge with their own talents and stories.
Personally, although Bolt is a huge loss, I've been watching athletics for over 30 years and I'm not going to stop simply because he's no longer on the scene. It was interesting watching the Men's 200 Final without Bolt. The winning time by Turkey's Ramil Guliyev was run in 20.09. One of the slowest winning times for a 200m World Final but it was still a great race to watch. With 100m to go, you had no idea who was going to win.
As for the spectre of drugs and cheating in the sport, this is one issue that refuses to go away from athletics. We're never going to eliminate cheating from the sport entirely. It's human nature to try and gain maximum advantage possible and this invariably leads to some crossing the line into cheating. It's important to ensure that the sport remains in a place where winning and being successful means being clean.
It's right that Russia's ban from competition remains in place and I would like to see longer bans of up to five years for those who have been caught cheating where there is clear evidence that their drug taking has been the result of attempts to improve their performance. You may think that sounds obvious but in athletics and other sports you do find that people have failed drug tests for a variety of reasons.
I'm thinking of the likes of Maria Sharapova in tennis who failed a drugs test after failing to realise that the medication she was taking had been moved to the banned list. There's a grey area of athletes who have failed drugs tests because of naivety, lack of professionalism. It goes back to the saying that athletes must be responsible for the medication and substances they are putting into their bodies.
When it comes to drug cheats there is no bigger hate figure than Justin Gatlin. I understand his frustration and the argument put forward that there are plenty of other athletes who competed last week that have served drug bans but none of them have received the same level of hostility shown towards Gatlin.
Unfortunately, Gatlin runs in the most high profile track event and since his return from his doping ban has been the most significant rival to Usain Bolt. Whether he likes it or not he has become the figure of hate that people will look at as representing the worst of drug cheats.
A good week for British Athletics?
Until the final day of competition it was looking like a pretty poor championships for Team GB. Thankfully our relay teams made the final medals tally respectable. The target was between 6 - 8 medals and we finished with 6.
Apart from Mo Farah there weren't any certain gold medals that GB could pin their hopes on. We were unlucky with a number of fourth spots - a couple of those could so easily have been bronze medals. Despite the lack of individual medals, overall it was an ok performance from Team GB.
World athletics is incredibly competitive and I think this fact is often overlooked by those with only a passing interest in the sport. Athletics is not rowing or cycling and Britain is never going to dominate in the way that we do in those sports.
We're not going to see a 'Super Saturday' in every World Championships and Olympics and in truth Britain has always had cycles where we have perhaps 2 or 3 genuine gold medal contenders competing. We've just come to the end of one of those cycles.
If you look at the spread of medals won by different countries, athletics is a truly world sport and for some events just making the final is a huge achievement. Of course the other side of the argument is that more scrutiny is paid to GB's performance when you take into account the level of funding British athletes receive.
I hadn't realised that GB receives 27 million pounds in funding. No other country is spending that amount on athletics so from that point of view we shouldn't get complacent and should be aiming for at least 10 medals at championships.
Lets bring the championships back to London
I was fortunate enough to attend last Monday's evening secession. The two finals included the Men's 110m hurdles won by the Jamaica's Omar McLeod and the Women's 1500m Final. The 1500 was without doubt the highlight of the evening and arguably the best race of the Championship.
The race was won by Kenya's Faith Kipyegon with Britain's Laura Muir missing out on a bronze medal after being pipped on the line. It was a brave run from her. With 150m to go she tried to keep up with Kipyegon and the Dutch athlete Sifan Hassen. Perhaps if she'd held back she would have had a better chance of winning the bronze but she went for it.
It was a brilliant race to watch live as you could see there were different phases to the race. The first lap was run with real intent, while the second lap was quite slow. The race really began wtih 500m to go with Hassen making her move to the front. The last lap was thrilling to watch.
Last Monday reminded me why I love watching athletics and why London and the UK is arguably the best place in the world to watch live sport. You can always rely on this country to turn up and show huge support for any major sporting event held in this country.
Every session at these World Championships was a sellout. Having attended the Anniversary Games the last two years at the Olympic stadium, I totally agree with those who say British athletics fans are incredibly knowledgeable and know their stuff. Another good point was made by the BBC's chief sports writer Tom Fordyce, who wrote:
"An athletics crowd is untouchable in its diversity: families, kids, a blend of ethnicities that reflected this host city but was light years away from the far narrower demographics at Wimbledon, or Twickenham, or Lord's."
This is so true, you find such a great mix of people when you watch live athletics.
The next World Championships are due to be held in Doha and Eugene, Oregon. You know for fact that the crowds will never match anything we've seen in London. It made me realise that there's no better place to watch athletics than London and this is why we should hold the Championships on a regular basis.
From the joy of watching a quite brilliant gold medal performance by the British Men's 4x100 relay team to the sad sight of seeing Usain Bolt pull up injured as he attempted to complete the final leg in his last ever race for the Jamaican team.
It was one race and one championship too far for Bolt but as Michael Johnson said in the BBC studio he didn't need to turn up to these Championships. He had nothing else to prove but I'm sure the appeal of finishing his career in front of a packed stadium in London was one of the motivating factors in him running again.
The same could be said for Mo Farah. In the last 7 years I don't think I've enjoyed watching 5 and 10,000m races as much with Mo at his best. It was hard effort to win gold in the 10,000m final and again in the 5,000 you just felt this a race too far. It shouldn't be overlooked that he still won silver but it felt strange seeing him not win the gold.
Usain Bolt and Mo Farah are not only my two favourite athletic stars they are two of my favourite sports stars. I feel fortunate and privileged that I've seen both of them run live over the last few years at the Olympic stadium. They will be hugely missed.
The future of athletics
We've listened to so many people talk about where athletics will go now that it has lost its biggest star in Usain Bolt. No matter how great an individual, every sport has to and will carry on. You might as well ask the same question of tennis when Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray retire. Or football when Messi and Ronaldo are no longer playing. Ultimately athletics and other sports go on and new stars emerge with their own talents and stories.
Personally, although Bolt is a huge loss, I've been watching athletics for over 30 years and I'm not going to stop simply because he's no longer on the scene. It was interesting watching the Men's 200 Final without Bolt. The winning time by Turkey's Ramil Guliyev was run in 20.09. One of the slowest winning times for a 200m World Final but it was still a great race to watch. With 100m to go, you had no idea who was going to win.
As for the spectre of drugs and cheating in the sport, this is one issue that refuses to go away from athletics. We're never going to eliminate cheating from the sport entirely. It's human nature to try and gain maximum advantage possible and this invariably leads to some crossing the line into cheating. It's important to ensure that the sport remains in a place where winning and being successful means being clean.
It's right that Russia's ban from competition remains in place and I would like to see longer bans of up to five years for those who have been caught cheating where there is clear evidence that their drug taking has been the result of attempts to improve their performance. You may think that sounds obvious but in athletics and other sports you do find that people have failed drug tests for a variety of reasons.
I'm thinking of the likes of Maria Sharapova in tennis who failed a drugs test after failing to realise that the medication she was taking had been moved to the banned list. There's a grey area of athletes who have failed drugs tests because of naivety, lack of professionalism. It goes back to the saying that athletes must be responsible for the medication and substances they are putting into their bodies.
When it comes to drug cheats there is no bigger hate figure than Justin Gatlin. I understand his frustration and the argument put forward that there are plenty of other athletes who competed last week that have served drug bans but none of them have received the same level of hostility shown towards Gatlin.
Unfortunately, Gatlin runs in the most high profile track event and since his return from his doping ban has been the most significant rival to Usain Bolt. Whether he likes it or not he has become the figure of hate that people will look at as representing the worst of drug cheats.
A good week for British Athletics?
Until the final day of competition it was looking like a pretty poor championships for Team GB. Thankfully our relay teams made the final medals tally respectable. The target was between 6 - 8 medals and we finished with 6.
Apart from Mo Farah there weren't any certain gold medals that GB could pin their hopes on. We were unlucky with a number of fourth spots - a couple of those could so easily have been bronze medals. Despite the lack of individual medals, overall it was an ok performance from Team GB.
World athletics is incredibly competitive and I think this fact is often overlooked by those with only a passing interest in the sport. Athletics is not rowing or cycling and Britain is never going to dominate in the way that we do in those sports.
We're not going to see a 'Super Saturday' in every World Championships and Olympics and in truth Britain has always had cycles where we have perhaps 2 or 3 genuine gold medal contenders competing. We've just come to the end of one of those cycles.
If you look at the spread of medals won by different countries, athletics is a truly world sport and for some events just making the final is a huge achievement. Of course the other side of the argument is that more scrutiny is paid to GB's performance when you take into account the level of funding British athletes receive.
I hadn't realised that GB receives 27 million pounds in funding. No other country is spending that amount on athletics so from that point of view we shouldn't get complacent and should be aiming for at least 10 medals at championships.
Lets bring the championships back to London
I was fortunate enough to attend last Monday's evening secession. The two finals included the Men's 110m hurdles won by the Jamaica's Omar McLeod and the Women's 1500m Final. The 1500 was without doubt the highlight of the evening and arguably the best race of the Championship.
The race was won by Kenya's Faith Kipyegon with Britain's Laura Muir missing out on a bronze medal after being pipped on the line. It was a brave run from her. With 150m to go she tried to keep up with Kipyegon and the Dutch athlete Sifan Hassen. Perhaps if she'd held back she would have had a better chance of winning the bronze but she went for it.
It was a brilliant race to watch live as you could see there were different phases to the race. The first lap was run with real intent, while the second lap was quite slow. The race really began wtih 500m to go with Hassen making her move to the front. The last lap was thrilling to watch.
Last Monday reminded me why I love watching athletics and why London and the UK is arguably the best place in the world to watch live sport. You can always rely on this country to turn up and show huge support for any major sporting event held in this country.
Every session at these World Championships was a sellout. Having attended the Anniversary Games the last two years at the Olympic stadium, I totally agree with those who say British athletics fans are incredibly knowledgeable and know their stuff. Another good point was made by the BBC's chief sports writer Tom Fordyce, who wrote:
"An athletics crowd is untouchable in its diversity: families, kids, a blend of ethnicities that reflected this host city but was light years away from the far narrower demographics at Wimbledon, or Twickenham, or Lord's."
This is so true, you find such a great mix of people when you watch live athletics.
The next World Championships are due to be held in Doha and Eugene, Oregon. You know for fact that the crowds will never match anything we've seen in London. It made me realise that there's no better place to watch athletics than London and this is why we should hold the Championships on a regular basis.
Friday, 23 June 2017
Grenfell Towers tragedy
A week after the Grenfell tower fire the political fallout shows no sign of slowing down.
As of today at least 79 people have died and the Chief Executive of Kensington and Chelsea council, Nicholas Holgate has resigned and leader of the council Nicholas Paget-Brown is under pressure to step down as well
It is without doubt a national tragedy and I agree a 100% with those people who have claimed it is our equivalent of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
When Katrina struck the US city of New Orleans, it revealed the stark reality of how race and class in America played a major role in who escaped the city and those who were left behind.
The Grenfell tower fire has revealed similar uncomfortable truths. The fire claimed the lives of some of London's poorest residents living in one of the richest boroughs in the UK.
Anyone living in London or familiar with the city will know there are areas where huge amounts of wealth and poverty exist next to each other. In many respects London has always been like this, going all the way back to the 19th Century. The book 'A tale of two cities' by Charles Dickens immediately springs to mind when you think about London and Grenfell Tower.
There's no doubt that the tragedy and its aftermath is a failure of both local and central government. It's clear that the poorest in our society, those on low incomes and towards the bottom of the social scale have been ignored for too long. Residents had repeatedly complained to the council about safety measures at the tower block but their concerns were ignored.
When you consider why the tower had lethal flammable cladding, no sprinklers fitted into the tower and just one inner staircase as an escape route, it comes as no surprise that residents had previously urged the management company - Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) to improve the buildings safety - their concerns were ignored.
I recently read that in November last year, a resident's organisation the Grenfell Action Group warned on its blog that it believed "only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord" and end the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation that they inflict upon their tenants and leaseholders"
After the fire had started, some residents stayed in their flats as they had been told to do so in the event of a fire - this guidance ultimately cost some residents their lives.
The response from both local and central government has come in for heavy criticism. Theresa May again showed her political weakness by failing to immediately meet with residents of Grenfell Tower. Such things are important and do matter as being a leader is about capturing the public mood at such moments and having the ability to clearly show empathy. Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council have not come out of this any better either.
The response has raised lots of questions about the state's role in providing a safety net for the country's poorest and most vulnerable people. I've heard comments saying that the tragedy is being made too political by opponents of the government; but how can this event be anything other than political?
Since the election of Margret Thatcher in 1979 and the advent of the new political consensus (I have to use the term neo-liberalism - it's such a cliche now) our ideas on the role of the state and what the state should do has radically changed. Fewer people now live in social housing and for those that do, the role of the state in providing maintenance, services and regulatory standards has diminished.
There's a growing feeling that the state needs to take a more active role and responsibility in many areas of society; whether it's in the economy or public services. This partly explains the rise in support for Jeremy Corbyn.
The tragedy comes at a time where it feels like the country is in turmoil. We've had a General Election which resulted in a hung parliament and not the expected Tory majority. We now have a weak minority government with a lame duck Prime Minister. During the election we had terrorist attacks in Manchester and London and we still have the issue of Brexit to deal with.
If feels like the country is in crisis. That there are forces developing that are leading the country to a new era of doing things. Perhaps this is what it was like towards the end of the 1970s. I was only a small child at the time but from everything I've heard and read, it felt like the country was coming to the end of a particular chapter which of course it was. It was the end of the 'Consensus post-war Period that was about to be replaced by Thatcherism.
I wonder if in years to come whether the Grenfell fire will be seen as part of a development that led to a new era of British politics and society. Only time will tell.
As of today at least 79 people have died and the Chief Executive of Kensington and Chelsea council, Nicholas Holgate has resigned and leader of the council Nicholas Paget-Brown is under pressure to step down as well
It is without doubt a national tragedy and I agree a 100% with those people who have claimed it is our equivalent of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
When Katrina struck the US city of New Orleans, it revealed the stark reality of how race and class in America played a major role in who escaped the city and those who were left behind.
The Grenfell tower fire has revealed similar uncomfortable truths. The fire claimed the lives of some of London's poorest residents living in one of the richest boroughs in the UK.
Anyone living in London or familiar with the city will know there are areas where huge amounts of wealth and poverty exist next to each other. In many respects London has always been like this, going all the way back to the 19th Century. The book 'A tale of two cities' by Charles Dickens immediately springs to mind when you think about London and Grenfell Tower.
There's no doubt that the tragedy and its aftermath is a failure of both local and central government. It's clear that the poorest in our society, those on low incomes and towards the bottom of the social scale have been ignored for too long. Residents had repeatedly complained to the council about safety measures at the tower block but their concerns were ignored.
When you consider why the tower had lethal flammable cladding, no sprinklers fitted into the tower and just one inner staircase as an escape route, it comes as no surprise that residents had previously urged the management company - Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) to improve the buildings safety - their concerns were ignored.
I recently read that in November last year, a resident's organisation the Grenfell Action Group warned on its blog that it believed "only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord" and end the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation that they inflict upon their tenants and leaseholders"
After the fire had started, some residents stayed in their flats as they had been told to do so in the event of a fire - this guidance ultimately cost some residents their lives.
The response from both local and central government has come in for heavy criticism. Theresa May again showed her political weakness by failing to immediately meet with residents of Grenfell Tower. Such things are important and do matter as being a leader is about capturing the public mood at such moments and having the ability to clearly show empathy. Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council have not come out of this any better either.
The response has raised lots of questions about the state's role in providing a safety net for the country's poorest and most vulnerable people. I've heard comments saying that the tragedy is being made too political by opponents of the government; but how can this event be anything other than political?
Since the election of Margret Thatcher in 1979 and the advent of the new political consensus (I have to use the term neo-liberalism - it's such a cliche now) our ideas on the role of the state and what the state should do has radically changed. Fewer people now live in social housing and for those that do, the role of the state in providing maintenance, services and regulatory standards has diminished.
There's a growing feeling that the state needs to take a more active role and responsibility in many areas of society; whether it's in the economy or public services. This partly explains the rise in support for Jeremy Corbyn.
The tragedy comes at a time where it feels like the country is in turmoil. We've had a General Election which resulted in a hung parliament and not the expected Tory majority. We now have a weak minority government with a lame duck Prime Minister. During the election we had terrorist attacks in Manchester and London and we still have the issue of Brexit to deal with.
If feels like the country is in crisis. That there are forces developing that are leading the country to a new era of doing things. Perhaps this is what it was like towards the end of the 1970s. I was only a small child at the time but from everything I've heard and read, it felt like the country was coming to the end of a particular chapter which of course it was. It was the end of the 'Consensus post-war Period that was about to be replaced by Thatcherism.
I wonder if in years to come whether the Grenfell fire will be seen as part of a development that led to a new era of British politics and society. Only time will tell.
Monday, 12 June 2017
Election 2017: Who saw this result coming?
Last Thursday with 2 hours left before the polls closed, I popped into one of my local betting shops and put a bet of £20 on The Conservative Party to win the General Election with a majority of 50 - 75 seats. I felt pretty confident, but as a 'hedge' bet I also had money on a Tory majority of over 75 seats.
Chatting about the election with the guy who took my bet, he said I shouldn't rule out the possibility of a hung parliament. I didn't hide my scepticism to that thought and went home confident that I was going to pick up some money the next day.
I'm sure you can imagine my surprise along with so many other people in the country when the exit poll was revealed at 10. I think I spent the next two hours in state of disbelief. Yet again the opinion polls got it completely wrong and all the assumptions about this election and the expected result proved to be a million miles off the mark.
The result of a hung parliament is an absolute humiliation for Teresa May and the Conservatives. I know life is about taking risks and it was always a risk to call this election but the odds were in her favour.
It's clear that the Tories fought an appalling campaign. I agree with the thought that it wasn't particularly positive or inspiring. It assumed that ultimately not enough Labour supporters would back a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party. What is evident is that although Teresa May has been a front line politician for over a decade, it was only in this election campaign that the public got a chance to really know her. What I and everyone else discovered is that she is a terrible campaigner with little personality or charisma.
She remains as Prime Minister for now, telling her party that she got them into this mess and is the person to get them out of it. She's on borrowed time and would have gone if it wasn't for next week's Brexit negotiations and the fact there is no obvious candidate to become the new Tory leader.
At the start of the year, I genuinely felt that Labour would end up with under 200 seats in Parliament. I thought any General Election would damage Labour so badly it would take at least another 10 - 15 years for Labour to become electable again. I couldn't see how a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party could ever succeed when a left wing manifesto was put to the British people. Ultimately I thought he was incompetent and unelectable!
Well like many people it's time for me to admit that some of these assumptions were wrong. I'm not going to apologies for these views as many of Labour MPs agreed with me.
I've been incredibly critical on Jeremy Corbyn since he became Labour Leader. I voted in both Labour leadership elections in 2015 and 2016 and voted against him. I have to admit he had a great campaign. He's grown into the role of leader. He seemed to enjoy his time meeting voters around the country unlike Teresa May. And he was positive and optimistic in his message.
He put forward every left wingers dream manifesto. More nationalisation, an end to austerity, more taxes for the rich, investment for the NHS. Populist and left wing. Whether Labour could deliver any of this is another question but it galvanised voters, especially young people who finally realised that if you come out and vote then collectively you can make a difference.
It was a great achievement for Labour to gain seats but it shouldn't be forgotten that ultimately Labour lost the election. The performance is a moral victory which is something the left love to indulge in.
Despite recognising that Jeremy Corbyn has improved as a leader and has earned to right to continue leading the Labour Party, it doesn't mean that I'm going to abandon all of my previous views and jump on a 'Jez we can' bandwagon.
For the last 35 years Corbyn has stuck rigidly to his views and values and has been lauded for his "principled" stance. Well many of us across the political spectrum have principles it's not something unique to leftwingers.
There are still policies proposed by Labour I don't agree with. Parts of their manifesto could cynically be described as a populist bribe. I'm unconvinced that many of the promises made could be implemented but I've realised that Corbyn supporter simply don't care.
Labour are still a long way from being in government. They need at least another 70 seats to gain a small majority and still need to convince more of the electorate that they are ready for power. However, judging by the ineptitude of the Conservatives - Labour might just be in with a chance.
Putting aside the performance of Labour and the Tories, my immediate thoughts on Thursday night centered on the view that as a country we are in chaos. We are about to embark on negotiations to leave the EU. Instead of having the 'strong and stable' government that was promised to deal with the biggest issue facing the country since the 2nd World War.
We have a government in crisis that is being propped up by the ultra conservative Northern Irish DUP.
The rest of Europe must be laughing at us. With Brexit and now this election I feel embarrassed at the state we now find ourselves in. Rather than thinking we can all have some time off from politics and elections we can instead look forward to another election within the next 12 months and more Brexit talks!
Sometimes I wish I wasn't interested in politics!
Chatting about the election with the guy who took my bet, he said I shouldn't rule out the possibility of a hung parliament. I didn't hide my scepticism to that thought and went home confident that I was going to pick up some money the next day.
I'm sure you can imagine my surprise along with so many other people in the country when the exit poll was revealed at 10. I think I spent the next two hours in state of disbelief. Yet again the opinion polls got it completely wrong and all the assumptions about this election and the expected result proved to be a million miles off the mark.
All of the results are in. This is how Britain voted in #GE2017 https://t.co/ZCL1dH1wv7 #BBCElection pic.twitter.com/FIhMtxLSWE
— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) June 9, 2017
The result of a hung parliament is an absolute humiliation for Teresa May and the Conservatives. I know life is about taking risks and it was always a risk to call this election but the odds were in her favour.
It's clear that the Tories fought an appalling campaign. I agree with the thought that it wasn't particularly positive or inspiring. It assumed that ultimately not enough Labour supporters would back a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party. What is evident is that although Teresa May has been a front line politician for over a decade, it was only in this election campaign that the public got a chance to really know her. What I and everyone else discovered is that she is a terrible campaigner with little personality or charisma.
She remains as Prime Minister for now, telling her party that she got them into this mess and is the person to get them out of it. She's on borrowed time and would have gone if it wasn't for next week's Brexit negotiations and the fact there is no obvious candidate to become the new Tory leader.
A personal victory for Jeremy Corbyn: Time to eat humble pie?
At the start of the year, I genuinely felt that Labour would end up with under 200 seats in Parliament. I thought any General Election would damage Labour so badly it would take at least another 10 - 15 years for Labour to become electable again. I couldn't see how a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party could ever succeed when a left wing manifesto was put to the British people. Ultimately I thought he was incompetent and unelectable!
Well like many people it's time for me to admit that some of these assumptions were wrong. I'm not going to apologies for these views as many of Labour MPs agreed with me.
I've been incredibly critical on Jeremy Corbyn since he became Labour Leader. I voted in both Labour leadership elections in 2015 and 2016 and voted against him. I have to admit he had a great campaign. He's grown into the role of leader. He seemed to enjoy his time meeting voters around the country unlike Teresa May. And he was positive and optimistic in his message.
He put forward every left wingers dream manifesto. More nationalisation, an end to austerity, more taxes for the rich, investment for the NHS. Populist and left wing. Whether Labour could deliver any of this is another question but it galvanised voters, especially young people who finally realised that if you come out and vote then collectively you can make a difference.
It was a great achievement for Labour to gain seats but it shouldn't be forgotten that ultimately Labour lost the election. The performance is a moral victory which is something the left love to indulge in.
Despite recognising that Jeremy Corbyn has improved as a leader and has earned to right to continue leading the Labour Party, it doesn't mean that I'm going to abandon all of my previous views and jump on a 'Jez we can' bandwagon.
For the last 35 years Corbyn has stuck rigidly to his views and values and has been lauded for his "principled" stance. Well many of us across the political spectrum have principles it's not something unique to leftwingers.
There are still policies proposed by Labour I don't agree with. Parts of their manifesto could cynically be described as a populist bribe. I'm unconvinced that many of the promises made could be implemented but I've realised that Corbyn supporter simply don't care.
Labour are still a long way from being in government. They need at least another 70 seats to gain a small majority and still need to convince more of the electorate that they are ready for power. However, judging by the ineptitude of the Conservatives - Labour might just be in with a chance.
A period of chaos
Putting aside the performance of Labour and the Tories, my immediate thoughts on Thursday night centered on the view that as a country we are in chaos. We are about to embark on negotiations to leave the EU. Instead of having the 'strong and stable' government that was promised to deal with the biggest issue facing the country since the 2nd World War.
We have a government in crisis that is being propped up by the ultra conservative Northern Irish DUP.
The rest of Europe must be laughing at us. With Brexit and now this election I feel embarrassed at the state we now find ourselves in. Rather than thinking we can all have some time off from politics and elections we can instead look forward to another election within the next 12 months and more Brexit talks!
Sometimes I wish I wasn't interested in politics!
Thursday, 8 June 2017
Election night thoughts
With just over an hour before the polls close I thought now would be a good time to review the election campaign and make my predictions for tonight's result.
Thinking back to 7 weeks ago when Teresa May I imagined that this would be the most boring and predictable General Election campaign that I'd ever witnessed. It's turned out to be far more interesting than anyone could have imagined. This is because it hasn't gone to script.
Teresa May was the 'strong and stable' leader who would lead the Conservatives to a crushing landslide victory over Jeremy Corbyn's party. The electorate would deliver a damning verdict on Labour's 'Hard Left' manifesto!
I have to admit, this is what I thought so I've been proved wrong along with many others but this election has revealed a number of things:
1. Teresa May isn't very good on the campaign trail. It's no wonder we saw so little of her during the EU referendum campaign.
2. The Conservatives have led a poor campaign. It hasn't been particularly inspiring. Teresa May has been evasive with the public and the media and that's before we even mention the 'dementia tax
3. Jeremy Corbyn has had a really good campaign. He looks like he's enjoyed it. He looks comfortable and has grown into the role of Labour leader. I have to admit I've found it unexpected.
4. Two party politics is back in fashion. After 2015 it seemed that the old two party politics were over. Although the Lib Dems suffered a humiliating loss of seats, the likes of UKIP and Greens gained a much larger share of votes and in Scotland, the SNP became the dominant party.
Things look very different now. The expected Lib Dem revival hasn't taken place and following Brexit, UKIP have become an irrelevance. The Green Party seem to be suffering now that the radical left option has been filled by Jeremy Corbyn. It seems only the SNP will remain in a strong position following tonight's result.
5. Terrorism and security have become significant issues. The campaign has sadly been overshadowed by the awful events in Manchester and London Bridge but it's raised awkward questions for both Corbyn and May. Firstly due to his previous support for the IRA and voting record in anti terror legislation and for May her record as Home Secretary.
6. Brexit has been surprisingly absent from the election debate
It's this point which has stood out as on a personal level as it's the most important issue for me.
This morning I decided to vote for the Liberal Democrates and my vote for them was based purely on the issue of Brexit. I voted Remain in last year's referendum and although I accept the result and don't want a re-run I certainly don't want a 'hard brexit' and want continued access to Single Market.
Of course there are other issues, like the the NHS, and public services, immigration and social care but for me, everything begins with Brexit. The direction which the country will take and how it deals with the issues mentioned will influenced directly by Brexit.
The Lib Dems won't win in my safe Tory constituency but I feel comfortable voting Lib Dem knowing that my vote is making my feelings known on the issue of Brexit.
Both Labour and the Conservative have had almost nothing to say on the issue which I find both ridiculous but unsurprising in equal measures. Teresa May seem determined to continue down the road of a hard Brexit and Labour seem to have little interest in the topic but then that was the case during the referendum.
It seems clear the Conservatives are going to win tonight probably with a majority of between 50 - 75 seats. It will not be a great victory for the Tory Party or Teresa May. Due to her performance she is very much a diminished figure and politician.
Jeremy Corbyn has exceeded all expectations but then those expectations were low to begin with. Corbyn has energised his base but I don't think it will translate into more seats, He will simply win more votes in already safe Labour seats.
I've written extensively about Jeremy Corbyn since he became leader of the Labour Party. If you've read any of my previous posts it will come as no surprise to know that I think he would be an mitigating disaster for this country.
This election is not a great election for somebody like me. I firmly believe that Brexit has and will damage this country; both Corbyn and Teresa May will simply damage the country in different ways. If I had to say who would be worse Teresa May and the Tories will be the lesser of the two evils.
I never thought I'd ever say that.
Thinking back to 7 weeks ago when Teresa May I imagined that this would be the most boring and predictable General Election campaign that I'd ever witnessed. It's turned out to be far more interesting than anyone could have imagined. This is because it hasn't gone to script.
Teresa May was the 'strong and stable' leader who would lead the Conservatives to a crushing landslide victory over Jeremy Corbyn's party. The electorate would deliver a damning verdict on Labour's 'Hard Left' manifesto!
I have to admit, this is what I thought so I've been proved wrong along with many others but this election has revealed a number of things:
1. Teresa May isn't very good on the campaign trail. It's no wonder we saw so little of her during the EU referendum campaign.
2. The Conservatives have led a poor campaign. It hasn't been particularly inspiring. Teresa May has been evasive with the public and the media and that's before we even mention the 'dementia tax
3. Jeremy Corbyn has had a really good campaign. He looks like he's enjoyed it. He looks comfortable and has grown into the role of Labour leader. I have to admit I've found it unexpected.
4. Two party politics is back in fashion. After 2015 it seemed that the old two party politics were over. Although the Lib Dems suffered a humiliating loss of seats, the likes of UKIP and Greens gained a much larger share of votes and in Scotland, the SNP became the dominant party.
Things look very different now. The expected Lib Dem revival hasn't taken place and following Brexit, UKIP have become an irrelevance. The Green Party seem to be suffering now that the radical left option has been filled by Jeremy Corbyn. It seems only the SNP will remain in a strong position following tonight's result.
5. Terrorism and security have become significant issues. The campaign has sadly been overshadowed by the awful events in Manchester and London Bridge but it's raised awkward questions for both Corbyn and May. Firstly due to his previous support for the IRA and voting record in anti terror legislation and for May her record as Home Secretary.
6. Brexit has been surprisingly absent from the election debate
It's this point which has stood out as on a personal level as it's the most important issue for me.
This morning I decided to vote for the Liberal Democrates and my vote for them was based purely on the issue of Brexit. I voted Remain in last year's referendum and although I accept the result and don't want a re-run I certainly don't want a 'hard brexit' and want continued access to Single Market.
Of course there are other issues, like the the NHS, and public services, immigration and social care but for me, everything begins with Brexit. The direction which the country will take and how it deals with the issues mentioned will influenced directly by Brexit.
The Lib Dems won't win in my safe Tory constituency but I feel comfortable voting Lib Dem knowing that my vote is making my feelings known on the issue of Brexit.
Both Labour and the Conservative have had almost nothing to say on the issue which I find both ridiculous but unsurprising in equal measures. Teresa May seem determined to continue down the road of a hard Brexit and Labour seem to have little interest in the topic but then that was the case during the referendum.
It seems clear the Conservatives are going to win tonight probably with a majority of between 50 - 75 seats. It will not be a great victory for the Tory Party or Teresa May. Due to her performance she is very much a diminished figure and politician.
Jeremy Corbyn has exceeded all expectations but then those expectations were low to begin with. Corbyn has energised his base but I don't think it will translate into more seats, He will simply win more votes in already safe Labour seats.
I've written extensively about Jeremy Corbyn since he became leader of the Labour Party. If you've read any of my previous posts it will come as no surprise to know that I think he would be an mitigating disaster for this country.
This election is not a great election for somebody like me. I firmly believe that Brexit has and will damage this country; both Corbyn and Teresa May will simply damage the country in different ways. If I had to say who would be worse Teresa May and the Tories will be the lesser of the two evils.
I never thought I'd ever say that.
Sunday, 28 May 2017
No easy answers in the fight against Islamic terrorism
It's been an incredibly sad and emotional week for the city Manchester and the rest of country following the bombing at the Manchester arena.
The two main feelings that I felt was firstly what an awful waste of life to so many innocent people who went out to enjoy themselves at a music concert. The second feeling I had and one which I always feel with such attacks is: What do these people (the terrorists) actually want?
I grew up in the 80s and 90s when IRA terrorism was still prominent throughout the UK and Ireland. I never supported their acts of violence but I understood they had a political objective which was a united Ireland.
What is the political objective of ISIS and Islamic terrorism in general? There isn't one. They simply hate who we are and our way of life. It's this that I find difficult to understand. There is no ultimate objective, so in theory we could never sit down with these terrorists and reach some sort of peace agreement.
I certainly don't agree with Jeremy Corbyn and the Left's view point that British Foreign policy is somehow to blame for these attacks. That argument falls down when you consider we've had attacks in Sweden and Belgium, two countries that were not involved in Iraq, Libya or Syria. Besides Islamic fundamentalists groups have been around for decades with some groups beginning life in the 50s and 60s.
This form of Islam hates Western values and ultimately has a nihilistic mentality that wants to do harm to us simply for the sake of it. All we can do is continue with our security efforts to prevent future attacks but just as important is to find ways to stop British born or raised Muslims from turning to extremism.
At the weekend when I was out with my sister in a bar where we ended up in a slightly heated conversation with a guy who is a friend of some friends. He was drunkenly saying: "Something needs to be done about the Muslims" before talking about how we need to go in and 'wipe out' the terrorists.
My sister and I pointed out that there is a difference between Islamic terrorism and the wider Muslim community and that going into the Middle East and 'wiping out hundreds of 'jihadists' is unlikely to permanently kill off this form of terrorism.
For our thoughts we were both labelled as Lefties!
Ultimately there are no easy answers and solutions to these terrorist attacks and this is what makes the challenge so difficult.
The two main feelings that I felt was firstly what an awful waste of life to so many innocent people who went out to enjoy themselves at a music concert. The second feeling I had and one which I always feel with such attacks is: What do these people (the terrorists) actually want?
I grew up in the 80s and 90s when IRA terrorism was still prominent throughout the UK and Ireland. I never supported their acts of violence but I understood they had a political objective which was a united Ireland.
What is the political objective of ISIS and Islamic terrorism in general? There isn't one. They simply hate who we are and our way of life. It's this that I find difficult to understand. There is no ultimate objective, so in theory we could never sit down with these terrorists and reach some sort of peace agreement.
I certainly don't agree with Jeremy Corbyn and the Left's view point that British Foreign policy is somehow to blame for these attacks. That argument falls down when you consider we've had attacks in Sweden and Belgium, two countries that were not involved in Iraq, Libya or Syria. Besides Islamic fundamentalists groups have been around for decades with some groups beginning life in the 50s and 60s.
This form of Islam hates Western values and ultimately has a nihilistic mentality that wants to do harm to us simply for the sake of it. All we can do is continue with our security efforts to prevent future attacks but just as important is to find ways to stop British born or raised Muslims from turning to extremism.
At the weekend when I was out with my sister in a bar where we ended up in a slightly heated conversation with a guy who is a friend of some friends. He was drunkenly saying: "Something needs to be done about the Muslims" before talking about how we need to go in and 'wipe out' the terrorists.
My sister and I pointed out that there is a difference between Islamic terrorism and the wider Muslim community and that going into the Middle East and 'wiping out hundreds of 'jihadists' is unlikely to permanently kill off this form of terrorism.
For our thoughts we were both labelled as Lefties!
Ultimately there are no easy answers and solutions to these terrorist attacks and this is what makes the challenge so difficult.
Tuesday, 18 April 2017
General Election 2017: Not another one
This morning the biggest news story for me was discovering that Harry Redknapp had been appointed the new Birmingham City manager following the nightmare that was GianFranco Zola.
That story was soon trumped by the announcement by Teresa May that there will be another General Election on the 8 June.
I have to admit I was quite excited when I heard there was going to be an announcement at 11:15 and I will enjoy election night but I'm not looking forward to another 7 weeks of political debate.
I get why we're having an election. The Conservatives have a huge lead over Labour in the polls and it makes political sense to go to the polls and strengthen the majority. I've read loads of opinion pieces about how this is a cynical ploy by the Conservative Party. A staggering U-turn by Teresa May. Personally I just think it's good politics.
We know the Conservative Party are going to win the election, it's simply a question on how big the majority will be. This is really the Brexit vote part II.
I'm more interested in seeing how the Labour Party will do. They certainly can't win this election and I fully expect them to dip below 200 seats. Anything below 170 will be an absolute disaster. Jeremy Corbyn may still have large support from Labour Party members but it's clear that the electorate at large do not see him as a potential Prime Minister.
Even when the inevitable happens and Labour loses, I'm not convinced he will step down as leader. Despite what he might say, the real aim of Jeremy Corbyn is to change the Labour Party and ensure that the Left maintain control. When he loses, his supporters will ensure that he is not held responsible for the defeat. It will because of disloyal 'Blairite' MPs and the hostile media!
We should see a Liberal Democrat revival. With only 9 MPs the only way is up and I can see them increasing their numbers in Parliament to between 25 - 40 seats. The great selling point for the Lib Dems are that they avidly pro Europe and will appeal to those Remain voters who are seeking a 'soft Brexit'
I don't really see the point of UKIP anymore and don't expect them to have any seats after 8 June while in Scotland the SNP will continue their dominance.
After the initial excitement of hearing the General Election declaration, I do understand those people who feel a sense of election fatigue. I just want the election to happen now. We know what the result is likely to be, I'm more interested in the election fallout.
That story was soon trumped by the announcement by Teresa May that there will be another General Election on the 8 June.
I have to admit I was quite excited when I heard there was going to be an announcement at 11:15 and I will enjoy election night but I'm not looking forward to another 7 weeks of political debate.
I get why we're having an election. The Conservatives have a huge lead over Labour in the polls and it makes political sense to go to the polls and strengthen the majority. I've read loads of opinion pieces about how this is a cynical ploy by the Conservative Party. A staggering U-turn by Teresa May. Personally I just think it's good politics.
We know the Conservative Party are going to win the election, it's simply a question on how big the majority will be. This is really the Brexit vote part II.
I'm more interested in seeing how the Labour Party will do. They certainly can't win this election and I fully expect them to dip below 200 seats. Anything below 170 will be an absolute disaster. Jeremy Corbyn may still have large support from Labour Party members but it's clear that the electorate at large do not see him as a potential Prime Minister.
Even when the inevitable happens and Labour loses, I'm not convinced he will step down as leader. Despite what he might say, the real aim of Jeremy Corbyn is to change the Labour Party and ensure that the Left maintain control. When he loses, his supporters will ensure that he is not held responsible for the defeat. It will because of disloyal 'Blairite' MPs and the hostile media!
We should see a Liberal Democrat revival. With only 9 MPs the only way is up and I can see them increasing their numbers in Parliament to between 25 - 40 seats. The great selling point for the Lib Dems are that they avidly pro Europe and will appeal to those Remain voters who are seeking a 'soft Brexit'
I don't really see the point of UKIP anymore and don't expect them to have any seats after 8 June while in Scotland the SNP will continue their dominance.
After the initial excitement of hearing the General Election declaration, I do understand those people who feel a sense of election fatigue. I just want the election to happen now. We know what the result is likely to be, I'm more interested in the election fallout.
Thursday, 26 January 2017
Article 50: One small victory
For those of us who voted Remain in the EU referendum we may have lost the war but there are still lots of smaller battles to be won.
Yesterday's Supreme Court decision on article 50 felt like a small victory for Remain voters. The decision means the government can't trigger Article 50 without approval from Parliament.
As expected critics have labelled the decision as some sort of attempt to thwart the will of the British people and Gina Miller the woman who started the legal fight to get Parliament to vote on the act has received some horrific abuse and threats.
Like many people who voted remain I accept we are leaving the EU, I don't feel I need to pretend that I like it but I've come to terms with it. What hasn't been decided is how we leave and the process and debate involved.
Brexit supporters love to go on about how the British people have decided to leave the EU but the way this narrative is presented you would think that over 75% of people voted to leave rather than the small majority of 52% who voted for Brexit.
There are still millions of people who did not want to leave the EU and it's right that their views and opinion on the type of Brexit we have are heard. This is the role Parliament should be taking and Parliament should play a role in representing all of the electorate and properly debating and scrutinising the terms and conditions by which we leave the EU.
In these anti-establishment, anti-politician times that we live in too many people seem to think a vote for Brexit is the beginning and end of the matter. The people have spoken and we need to get on with it!
Well it might upset quite a lot of leave voters but we do still live in a parliamentary democracy. The referendum was a simple in/out question. We voted out but the terms and conditions on how we leave are up for debate.
It's only right that Parliament are involved, I've had quite enough of 'direct democracy'. The reason we have MPs is precisely for such occasions, the effects of Brexit will be felt for decades to come and how we leave needs to be debated and assessed properly.
It looks as if we're heading for a 'Hard Brexit' something many people did not vote for. My hope is that before Article 50 is triggered we arrive at a deal that better reflects the views of the electorate. Of course I know this will be difficult. Brexit is arguably the most divisive issue I've experienced living in the UK.
With more than 6 months now gone since the referendum result, I'm quite happy to admit that my disappointment and anger has only increased. I would say it's now bordering on a loathing for what I feel Brexit represents.
There's no doubt in my mind that individually and as a nation we will be poorer but for some the bigger issue is controlling borders.
Immigration is a fact of life, the country needs some for immigration. The volume and type of immigration (particularly in certain parts of the country) is the real issue.
But for me it's not just the economic and financial impact of Brexit that I'm opposed to, there's the cultural issues that Brexit represents. It's a kind of arrogance where the UK feels it can turn its back on its nearest neighbours, unwilling to make concessions and accept rules of membership of a club. Instead we will go out into the world and believe we can have all these great trade deals with the rest of the world which will always be in our favour.
Brexiteers will hate my analysis but I simply don't care.
Yesterday's Supreme Court decision on article 50 felt like a small victory for Remain voters. The decision means the government can't trigger Article 50 without approval from Parliament.
As expected critics have labelled the decision as some sort of attempt to thwart the will of the British people and Gina Miller the woman who started the legal fight to get Parliament to vote on the act has received some horrific abuse and threats.
Like many people who voted remain I accept we are leaving the EU, I don't feel I need to pretend that I like it but I've come to terms with it. What hasn't been decided is how we leave and the process and debate involved.
Brexit supporters love to go on about how the British people have decided to leave the EU but the way this narrative is presented you would think that over 75% of people voted to leave rather than the small majority of 52% who voted for Brexit.
There are still millions of people who did not want to leave the EU and it's right that their views and opinion on the type of Brexit we have are heard. This is the role Parliament should be taking and Parliament should play a role in representing all of the electorate and properly debating and scrutinising the terms and conditions by which we leave the EU.
In these anti-establishment, anti-politician times that we live in too many people seem to think a vote for Brexit is the beginning and end of the matter. The people have spoken and we need to get on with it!
Well it might upset quite a lot of leave voters but we do still live in a parliamentary democracy. The referendum was a simple in/out question. We voted out but the terms and conditions on how we leave are up for debate.
It's only right that Parliament are involved, I've had quite enough of 'direct democracy'. The reason we have MPs is precisely for such occasions, the effects of Brexit will be felt for decades to come and how we leave needs to be debated and assessed properly.
It looks as if we're heading for a 'Hard Brexit' something many people did not vote for. My hope is that before Article 50 is triggered we arrive at a deal that better reflects the views of the electorate. Of course I know this will be difficult. Brexit is arguably the most divisive issue I've experienced living in the UK.
With more than 6 months now gone since the referendum result, I'm quite happy to admit that my disappointment and anger has only increased. I would say it's now bordering on a loathing for what I feel Brexit represents.
There's no doubt in my mind that individually and as a nation we will be poorer but for some the bigger issue is controlling borders.
Immigration is a fact of life, the country needs some for immigration. The volume and type of immigration (particularly in certain parts of the country) is the real issue.
But for me it's not just the economic and financial impact of Brexit that I'm opposed to, there's the cultural issues that Brexit represents. It's a kind of arrogance where the UK feels it can turn its back on its nearest neighbours, unwilling to make concessions and accept rules of membership of a club. Instead we will go out into the world and believe we can have all these great trade deals with the rest of the world which will always be in our favour.
Brexiteers will hate my analysis but I simply don't care.
Monday, 23 January 2017
Donald Trump and the Divided States of America
It hasn't been a good week for those of us who consider ourselves to be liberal progressives types.
On Friday Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America. It feels if we're heading on journey into the unknown which you know is going to get very bumpy in places.
In the analysis following Trump's inauguration we're told how America is a divided nation but they say this after every US election when a new President is elected.
We've seen demonstrations in Washington and in cities across the world protesting against the rhetoric and language that Donald Trump as displayed throughout the election campaign and during the run up to him taking office.
I've realised that this is what happens in US politics. I remember in the 90s when Bill Clinton was in office. The Republican Party went into melt down in opposition to him. In 2000, Democrats and Liberals were outraged as George Bush won the election after winning the state of Florida which was too close to call.
In 2008 many celebrated the election of Barack Obama as America's first black president, but again conservatives were immediately hostile with some claiming he was illegitimate as President as he supposedly wasn't born in America
This is American politics and America in a nutshell, split down the middle between liberal and conservative America. Both sides descending into hostility and outrage when the other occupies the Presidency.
Will Donald Trump unite this divided nation? Of course he won't. He's too much of a divisive figure for that to happen and I expect the next four years to be pretty hostile from both sides of the political divide.
What to expect from a Trump Presidency
With Trump now in power I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when his rhetoric and bravado comes face to face with the realities of domestic politics and international relations.
It's easy to come out with slogans like, 'lets make America great again' and 'America first' but actually delivering on such statements is the real hard part.
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't get carried away with politicians telling me how they're going to change the world, or are going to make things great again. I look back to 2008 when Obama was elected. I was genuinely excited and optimistic. He spoke about how 'change had come to America'. I listened to political commentators tell me how we were now entering a 'post-racial' world.
Eight years later what real radical change did Obama bring? He didn't change America and as for a post-racial world if that was truly the case we wouldn't have the need for a Black Lives matter movement. This isn't a criticism of Obama, I'm just stating the point that the rhetoric and ideals espoused by politicians rarely matches reality.
This is what will happen with Donald Trump. Bringing back manufacturing jobs to the US from other countries is going to be incredibly difficult. Having a protectionist policy towards trade is unlikely to reap the benefits of making America great again.
As leader of the United States you still have a great deal of power and influence but I just don't believe that Presidents and elected officials can have the power and influence to change everything in the ways that we sometimes hope as voters.
If there is one defining feeling I have about Donald Trump it's the feeling of entering the unknown. We're in uncharted waters with his election. This could be a car crash waiting to happen. Something tells me it won't be as bad as some are predicting but a Donald Trump presidency will never be one in which I can truly feel comfortable with.
On Friday Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America. It feels if we're heading on journey into the unknown which you know is going to get very bumpy in places.
In the analysis following Trump's inauguration we're told how America is a divided nation but they say this after every US election when a new President is elected.
We've seen demonstrations in Washington and in cities across the world protesting against the rhetoric and language that Donald Trump as displayed throughout the election campaign and during the run up to him taking office.
I've realised that this is what happens in US politics. I remember in the 90s when Bill Clinton was in office. The Republican Party went into melt down in opposition to him. In 2000, Democrats and Liberals were outraged as George Bush won the election after winning the state of Florida which was too close to call.
In 2008 many celebrated the election of Barack Obama as America's first black president, but again conservatives were immediately hostile with some claiming he was illegitimate as President as he supposedly wasn't born in America
This is American politics and America in a nutshell, split down the middle between liberal and conservative America. Both sides descending into hostility and outrage when the other occupies the Presidency.
Will Donald Trump unite this divided nation? Of course he won't. He's too much of a divisive figure for that to happen and I expect the next four years to be pretty hostile from both sides of the political divide.
What to expect from a Trump Presidency
With Trump now in power I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when his rhetoric and bravado comes face to face with the realities of domestic politics and international relations.
It's easy to come out with slogans like, 'lets make America great again' and 'America first' but actually delivering on such statements is the real hard part.
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't get carried away with politicians telling me how they're going to change the world, or are going to make things great again. I look back to 2008 when Obama was elected. I was genuinely excited and optimistic. He spoke about how 'change had come to America'. I listened to political commentators tell me how we were now entering a 'post-racial' world.
Eight years later what real radical change did Obama bring? He didn't change America and as for a post-racial world if that was truly the case we wouldn't have the need for a Black Lives matter movement. This isn't a criticism of Obama, I'm just stating the point that the rhetoric and ideals espoused by politicians rarely matches reality.
This is what will happen with Donald Trump. Bringing back manufacturing jobs to the US from other countries is going to be incredibly difficult. Having a protectionist policy towards trade is unlikely to reap the benefits of making America great again.
As leader of the United States you still have a great deal of power and influence but I just don't believe that Presidents and elected officials can have the power and influence to change everything in the ways that we sometimes hope as voters.
If there is one defining feeling I have about Donald Trump it's the feeling of entering the unknown. We're in uncharted waters with his election. This could be a car crash waiting to happen. Something tells me it won't be as bad as some are predicting but a Donald Trump presidency will never be one in which I can truly feel comfortable with.
Saturday, 31 December 2016
2016 A Year in Review
Well it's New Year's Eve and I thought I'd better write a few thoughts on 2016. It's been a dramatic year both globally and for me personally.
When I reflect on 2016, I immediately think of political upheaval and celebrity deaths. It's a strange combination but when you consider the biggest news stories have been the likes of Brexit, Donald Trump becoming US President alongside the endless list of musicians, actors, sports stars and writers who have died this year, I can't think of any other stories that have dominated the year.
As we approach 2017 I don't think I've felt a greater level of uncertainty about the world I'm living in. As a history graduate I know certain years have a lasting historical importance. 1848 a year of political revolutions across Europe, 1914 and the outbreak of World War One, 1945 the end of the Second World War, 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Will 2016 have the same historical relevance?
What's clear is that political, economic, social and cultural forces have been evolving for a number of years and the fallout from these forces has been evident throughout 2016.
When you look at Brexit and the success of Donald Trump it's been widely interpreted as a 'peoples revolt' against the elite, the establishment and the negative consequences of globalisation.
As someone who voted Remain and was against Trump's Presidential bid, I have no interest in voting for this supposed revolt. I understand many people are unhappy about the status quo which for a lot of people is no longer working for them. But I'm sceptical that this rise in anti establishment populism will some how solve many of the issues and challenges that we currently face.
Phrases like 'take back control' and 'lets make America great again' ultimately mean nothing. I never thought of myself as being an establishment sort but given the alternative that's being presented I'd rather be part of the establishment.
The world is a complex and difficult place and easy rhetoric and slogans are unlikely to solve many the big issues that we face in the 21st Century. I have a feeling that many of the people who were happy to give their respective establishments a kicking will find themselves being disappointed by the populist response in the forthcoming years.
Celebrity deaths
Famous people and celebrities die every year just like ordinary people but there's been something different about 2016 and the number of so many significant figures.
I found myself surprised by my level of feelings for certain celebrities. In January we said goodbye to David Bowie. Out of all this year's celebrity deaths I would say Bowie's had the biggest impression on me. When you think about Britain's biggest and most iconic rock and pop stars from the 1960s and 70s, David Bowie was my favourite artist.
You simply can't imagine the history of British pop and rock without him. As is the way in these situations you start to look back on an artist's back catalogue. I decided to download two of Bowie's 70s albums Young Americans (his blue eyed soul era) and Low, part of the famous Berlin trilogy.
If Bowie is one of my favourite British artists, than Prince is one of my favourite American artists. I always have and always will love the versatility of Prince. Rock, pop, soul, funk, jazz, he could do it all. Another artist whose music defines my musical upbringing.
Finally I was shocked and saddened George Michael's sudden death last week. Another artist whose music defined an era for those of use who grew up in the 80s. An incredibly talented artist who know that he's gone, I'm reminded of what a talented singer and song writer he was. I downloaded his 1996 album Older in memory. A great album.
In sport we lost Muhammad Ali and Johan Cruff. Ali is the most iconic and I think the most significant sports star of the 20th century. His achievements as a boxer and sportsman stand alone but his greatness comes also from the kind of person he was and his impact and influence on the public's consciousness.
As for Cruyff, how can any true football fan not love Cruyff the player and his managerial legacy that lives on with Barcelona. The true legend of the game.
Those are just some of the celebrities whose passing had an impact on me. I'm sure you and everyone else will have your own personal memories for people whose career had some influence and relevance to your life.
It doesn't matter whether we personally knew these people, their deaths remind us of the influence of popular culture. As our societies become more fragmented and individualist. TV, film, music and sport provide us with forms of art that we can experience and consume on a collective basis.
The music we listen to, the sports, films, and tv we watch help define who we are as people and when those individuals who have helped create the cultural experience die it naturally has an effect on us.
2016: My own personal experience
2016 has been the most significant year of my life due to the fact that my Dad passed away on the 15 February.
The sense of sadness that overwhelms me just by typing the last sentence is huge. My Dad had been ill for 12 months and had spent 2 and half months in hospital in 2015 as he was treated for kidney failure and blood cancer.
At the beginning of 2016 I knew it was unlikely that he would survive the year. On the day he died I remember sitting in his hospital room with him lying lifeless on the bed next to me. I remember thinking 'how have we reached this point so quickly?' Life passes by so quickly as you get older.
I'm grateful and happy that my Dad was in my life from day one and that I never went more than two months without seeing him. I think about him everyday.
When I reflect on 2016, I immediately think of political upheaval and celebrity deaths. It's a strange combination but when you consider the biggest news stories have been the likes of Brexit, Donald Trump becoming US President alongside the endless list of musicians, actors, sports stars and writers who have died this year, I can't think of any other stories that have dominated the year.
As we approach 2017 I don't think I've felt a greater level of uncertainty about the world I'm living in. As a history graduate I know certain years have a lasting historical importance. 1848 a year of political revolutions across Europe, 1914 and the outbreak of World War One, 1945 the end of the Second World War, 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Will 2016 have the same historical relevance?
What's clear is that political, economic, social and cultural forces have been evolving for a number of years and the fallout from these forces has been evident throughout 2016.
When you look at Brexit and the success of Donald Trump it's been widely interpreted as a 'peoples revolt' against the elite, the establishment and the negative consequences of globalisation.
As someone who voted Remain and was against Trump's Presidential bid, I have no interest in voting for this supposed revolt. I understand many people are unhappy about the status quo which for a lot of people is no longer working for them. But I'm sceptical that this rise in anti establishment populism will some how solve many of the issues and challenges that we currently face.
Phrases like 'take back control' and 'lets make America great again' ultimately mean nothing. I never thought of myself as being an establishment sort but given the alternative that's being presented I'd rather be part of the establishment.
The world is a complex and difficult place and easy rhetoric and slogans are unlikely to solve many the big issues that we face in the 21st Century. I have a feeling that many of the people who were happy to give their respective establishments a kicking will find themselves being disappointed by the populist response in the forthcoming years.
Celebrity deaths
Famous people and celebrities die every year just like ordinary people but there's been something different about 2016 and the number of so many significant figures.
I found myself surprised by my level of feelings for certain celebrities. In January we said goodbye to David Bowie. Out of all this year's celebrity deaths I would say Bowie's had the biggest impression on me. When you think about Britain's biggest and most iconic rock and pop stars from the 1960s and 70s, David Bowie was my favourite artist.
You simply can't imagine the history of British pop and rock without him. As is the way in these situations you start to look back on an artist's back catalogue. I decided to download two of Bowie's 70s albums Young Americans (his blue eyed soul era) and Low, part of the famous Berlin trilogy.
If Bowie is one of my favourite British artists, than Prince is one of my favourite American artists. I always have and always will love the versatility of Prince. Rock, pop, soul, funk, jazz, he could do it all. Another artist whose music defines my musical upbringing.
Finally I was shocked and saddened George Michael's sudden death last week. Another artist whose music defined an era for those of use who grew up in the 80s. An incredibly talented artist who know that he's gone, I'm reminded of what a talented singer and song writer he was. I downloaded his 1996 album Older in memory. A great album.
In sport we lost Muhammad Ali and Johan Cruff. Ali is the most iconic and I think the most significant sports star of the 20th century. His achievements as a boxer and sportsman stand alone but his greatness comes also from the kind of person he was and his impact and influence on the public's consciousness.
As for Cruyff, how can any true football fan not love Cruyff the player and his managerial legacy that lives on with Barcelona. The true legend of the game.
Those are just some of the celebrities whose passing had an impact on me. I'm sure you and everyone else will have your own personal memories for people whose career had some influence and relevance to your life.
It doesn't matter whether we personally knew these people, their deaths remind us of the influence of popular culture. As our societies become more fragmented and individualist. TV, film, music and sport provide us with forms of art that we can experience and consume on a collective basis.
The music we listen to, the sports, films, and tv we watch help define who we are as people and when those individuals who have helped create the cultural experience die it naturally has an effect on us.
2016: My own personal experience
2016 has been the most significant year of my life due to the fact that my Dad passed away on the 15 February.
The sense of sadness that overwhelms me just by typing the last sentence is huge. My Dad had been ill for 12 months and had spent 2 and half months in hospital in 2015 as he was treated for kidney failure and blood cancer.
At the beginning of 2016 I knew it was unlikely that he would survive the year. On the day he died I remember sitting in his hospital room with him lying lifeless on the bed next to me. I remember thinking 'how have we reached this point so quickly?' Life passes by so quickly as you get older.
I'm grateful and happy that my Dad was in my life from day one and that I never went more than two months without seeing him. I think about him everyday.
Sunday, 13 November 2016
Donald Trump: A great leap into the unknown
For the second time this year, I went to bed quietly expecting a national vote to go one way only to wake up the next morning and discover it went the opposite way to what I hoped for.
Although I'm shocked and disappointed by Donald Trump's election victory it doesn't compare to how upset I felt after the Brexit result.
I understand and recognise that many of the same forces that led to Brexit are behind Donald Trump's election win. My main feelings over the last couple of days have been one of general uncertainty.
What does the future hold for America and the world with Donald Trump as President? It's this uncertainty that I find uncomfortable to deal with.
I've written about this before in earlier blogs and what's clear is that there is a growing movement and revolt against establishment politicians and global elites. Donald Trump becoming President is the biggest reaction against this.
We constantly hear about those people who feel left behind by the effects of globalisation, the disappearance of well paying manufacturing jobs in places like the American Mid-West and the North of England. People who feel the elites and establishments in London, and the East and West Coasts of the US don't understand or are interested in their lives.
Many people quite rightly feel that the system is no longer working for them anymore. I get this I just don't believe that Trump will have the answers to many of the problems and frustrations many people feel.
I know I'm not the only person who assumed his leadership bid would simply run out of steam, that it was a bad joke that wound eventually stop being funny but it's no longer a joke, Donald Trump will be the next President.
In terms of him implementing many of his policies, I'm convinced that when faced with the day to day realities of government some of his policy statements will either be abandoned or severely limited. The Wall along the Mexican border - surely that cannot happen?
I might be overly optimistic in saying I don't think Trump's Presidency will be quite the nightmare that many of us think it will be but at the same time it's not going to be great.
His election victory says a number of things about how America sees itself, both at home and abroad but also how we in the West choose to deal with many of the social and political challenges that lie ahead.
The outcome of Brexit and the US Presidential election tell me that the forces of reactionary right wing populism are on the rise. That in dealing with our challenges means that we become a nations more insular, fearful or hostile to others. That we're happy not to try and change the system to make things better but instead we'll smash the system up completely regardless of the consequences.
I feel deeply uncomfortable with the way things are going? What worries me is that Brexit and President elect Trump is simply the start of a domino process. We have elections coming up in the next 18 months in France, Germany and Italy.
Are we going to see a similar anti establishment backlash in those countries? Certainly in France the political climate appears ripe for Marie Le Pen's National Front to make major gains.
I feel that in historical terms we're coming to the end of an era in history. Since the end of the Second World War. We've seen countries come to together both economically, politically and militarily to ensure future peace and prosperity. The problem is that this consensus of free trade, the movement of goods people and capital around the world. Political and economic unions like NATO and the EU are in danger of breaking up as a result of these anti establishment forces.
After reading and listening to all the analyse on Donald Trump, part of me feels it can't be as bad as we think it's going to be but what I am concerned about is the future of international relations and the prevailing thoughts and values that are emerging.
Eight years ago Barack Obama was elected the first African American President. Rarely have I felt so much optimism, even though expectations on Obama were ridiculously high. After this week's Trump victory never have I felt so much pessimism.
Although I'm shocked and disappointed by Donald Trump's election victory it doesn't compare to how upset I felt after the Brexit result.
I understand and recognise that many of the same forces that led to Brexit are behind Donald Trump's election win. My main feelings over the last couple of days have been one of general uncertainty.
What does the future hold for America and the world with Donald Trump as President? It's this uncertainty that I find uncomfortable to deal with.
I've written about this before in earlier blogs and what's clear is that there is a growing movement and revolt against establishment politicians and global elites. Donald Trump becoming President is the biggest reaction against this.
We constantly hear about those people who feel left behind by the effects of globalisation, the disappearance of well paying manufacturing jobs in places like the American Mid-West and the North of England. People who feel the elites and establishments in London, and the East and West Coasts of the US don't understand or are interested in their lives.
Many people quite rightly feel that the system is no longer working for them anymore. I get this I just don't believe that Trump will have the answers to many of the problems and frustrations many people feel.
I know I'm not the only person who assumed his leadership bid would simply run out of steam, that it was a bad joke that wound eventually stop being funny but it's no longer a joke, Donald Trump will be the next President.
In terms of him implementing many of his policies, I'm convinced that when faced with the day to day realities of government some of his policy statements will either be abandoned or severely limited. The Wall along the Mexican border - surely that cannot happen?
I might be overly optimistic in saying I don't think Trump's Presidency will be quite the nightmare that many of us think it will be but at the same time it's not going to be great.
His election victory says a number of things about how America sees itself, both at home and abroad but also how we in the West choose to deal with many of the social and political challenges that lie ahead.
The outcome of Brexit and the US Presidential election tell me that the forces of reactionary right wing populism are on the rise. That in dealing with our challenges means that we become a nations more insular, fearful or hostile to others. That we're happy not to try and change the system to make things better but instead we'll smash the system up completely regardless of the consequences.
I feel deeply uncomfortable with the way things are going? What worries me is that Brexit and President elect Trump is simply the start of a domino process. We have elections coming up in the next 18 months in France, Germany and Italy.
Are we going to see a similar anti establishment backlash in those countries? Certainly in France the political climate appears ripe for Marie Le Pen's National Front to make major gains.
I feel that in historical terms we're coming to the end of an era in history. Since the end of the Second World War. We've seen countries come to together both economically, politically and militarily to ensure future peace and prosperity. The problem is that this consensus of free trade, the movement of goods people and capital around the world. Political and economic unions like NATO and the EU are in danger of breaking up as a result of these anti establishment forces.
After reading and listening to all the analyse on Donald Trump, part of me feels it can't be as bad as we think it's going to be but what I am concerned about is the future of international relations and the prevailing thoughts and values that are emerging.
Eight years ago Barack Obama was elected the first African American President. Rarely have I felt so much optimism, even though expectations on Obama were ridiculously high. After this week's Trump victory never have I felt so much pessimism.
Saturday, 5 November 2016
Finally, a moment of sanity
This week's ruling on Article 50 by the High Court seemed to be a moment of sanity that us Remain voters had been crying out for since the Brexit result.
The decision by the three senior judges means that the Prime Minister, Theresa May cannot trigger Article 50 without approval from parliament.
This would seem a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do, before we go ahead with such a crucial decision. We should at least have some idea of the kind of Brexit we're going to get as a country and it's only right that Parliament has a say on such a significant matter.
This however is not the thoughts of your Brexit fundamentalists and the right-wing press. This week's decision for them was a case of unelected, out of touch judges blocking the will of the British people.
The reaction of the Daily Mail and The Express was ridiculous as they descended into a collective melt down. Not only was it totally predictable but I couldn't help but quietly laugh to myself. Brexit was never going to be an easy straight forward affair and so it's proving.
First things first, the UK will still be leaving the EU. Even as a Remainer I accept that decision. What's now important is the kind of Brexit we're going to have.
What annoys me is that Brexiteers think that because they won the referendum, those of us who voted to stay in the EU must now shut up. It's as if we're not allowed to debate or question the terms of Brexit.
What seems to have been completely overlooked is the vote for Brexit was only 52%. It's a majority but not a huge majority. A significant number of people in this country did not vote to the leave the EU and those thoughts and feelings have to be taken into account.
When I think about Brexit and those who most advocated the UK leaving the EU, I'm reminded of a chant commonly sung by football fans around the country.
Fans will be familiar with moments in matches when the referee makes a series of wrong and strange decisions in a short space of time that gives the impression that he's lost control of the game, a familiar chant of: 'You don't know what you're doing' rings out from fans of the team on the wrong end of these decisions.
I think about that chant in relation to Brexiteers and feel compounded to shout 'You don't know what you're doing' every time someone tells me that Remainers should shut up and that Brexit will prove to be a brilliant success.
It's quite clear that within the Brexiteer vote there are different visions of what a post EU world will look like for the UK; there's no clear consensus on what Brexit will mean.
Last week's High Court decision on Article 50 is about implementing the necessary checks and balances needed in this process. Applying appropriate scrutiny and ensuring that over the next 6 months we get some clarification on what the long term plan is.
If this country is now going to leave the EU then I'd like to leave in a way that I think is best for Britain. If you asked people who voted for Brexit you will find a whole range of different reasons for their vote. Immigration, more money for the EU, an end to EU red tape and regulation.
It's quite clear there is no clear consensus or idea on what a post Brexit world should look like for this country. Brexiteers and the right-wing press might want to remember this before they accuse Remainers of being enemies of the people.
The decision by the three senior judges means that the Prime Minister, Theresa May cannot trigger Article 50 without approval from parliament.
This would seem a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do, before we go ahead with such a crucial decision. We should at least have some idea of the kind of Brexit we're going to get as a country and it's only right that Parliament has a say on such a significant matter.
This however is not the thoughts of your Brexit fundamentalists and the right-wing press. This week's decision for them was a case of unelected, out of touch judges blocking the will of the British people.
The reaction of the Daily Mail and The Express was ridiculous as they descended into a collective melt down. Not only was it totally predictable but I couldn't help but quietly laugh to myself. Brexit was never going to be an easy straight forward affair and so it's proving.
First things first, the UK will still be leaving the EU. Even as a Remainer I accept that decision. What's now important is the kind of Brexit we're going to have.
What annoys me is that Brexiteers think that because they won the referendum, those of us who voted to stay in the EU must now shut up. It's as if we're not allowed to debate or question the terms of Brexit.
What seems to have been completely overlooked is the vote for Brexit was only 52%. It's a majority but not a huge majority. A significant number of people in this country did not vote to the leave the EU and those thoughts and feelings have to be taken into account.
When I think about Brexit and those who most advocated the UK leaving the EU, I'm reminded of a chant commonly sung by football fans around the country.
Fans will be familiar with moments in matches when the referee makes a series of wrong and strange decisions in a short space of time that gives the impression that he's lost control of the game, a familiar chant of: 'You don't know what you're doing' rings out from fans of the team on the wrong end of these decisions.
I think about that chant in relation to Brexiteers and feel compounded to shout 'You don't know what you're doing' every time someone tells me that Remainers should shut up and that Brexit will prove to be a brilliant success.
It's quite clear that within the Brexiteer vote there are different visions of what a post EU world will look like for the UK; there's no clear consensus on what Brexit will mean.
Last week's High Court decision on Article 50 is about implementing the necessary checks and balances needed in this process. Applying appropriate scrutiny and ensuring that over the next 6 months we get some clarification on what the long term plan is.
If this country is now going to leave the EU then I'd like to leave in a way that I think is best for Britain. If you asked people who voted for Brexit you will find a whole range of different reasons for their vote. Immigration, more money for the EU, an end to EU red tape and regulation.
It's quite clear there is no clear consensus or idea on what a post Brexit world should look like for this country. Brexiteers and the right-wing press might want to remember this before they accuse Remainers of being enemies of the people.
Friday, 30 September 2016
Jeremy Corbyn: Leading Labour into the abyss
I've spent the last couple of weeks enjoying a great holiday on the Caribbean island of St Kitts.
I returned just in time to witness the response to Jeremy Corbyn's re-election as Labour Party leader. The result was of no surprise and Corbyn even increased the size of his vote. Regardless of what Corbyn supporters might say his victory is bad for the Labour Party and bad for democracy in the UK.
As a member of the GMB Union I voted in both this month's leadership election voting for Owen Smith, and in last year's election when I voted for Liz Kendall. I didn't think Jeremy Corbyn would be the right leader for the Labour Party in 2015 and the last 12 months have only confirmed my feelings that he is essentially killing the Labour Party.
I understand Corbyn's appeal, and I recognise that a lot of people in the country, particularly on the left are looking for something different in politics. It's not something unique to Britain. We've seen the rise in anti-establishment politics around the world. Donald Trump and Bennie Sanders are examples of this in America.
In Europe you have Podemos in Spain, the Five Star Movement in Italy, France's National Front and in Greece the far left party of Syriza are now in government. Corbyn is part of this protest movement.
The problem is that this protest movement should not and cannot be in charge a mainstream party like the Labour Party. The purpose of the Labour Party is to win power on behalf of working people. It is not a protest party which is what Labour has and will continue to be under Corbyn.
Labour: A party to please itself
I have to admit, I thought Corbyn gave a good speech at this week's Party Conference in Liverpool. It was well delivered and you can see that he has certainly grown into the role of Labour leader. But ultimately there was nothing in the speech or the conference as a whole to suggest anything other than a huge defeat for Labour at the next General Election.
If I have learnt anything about the success and popularity of the Jeremy Corbyn it's this. Labour has become a party that is run by and for the interests of its growing membership.
It's quite revealing that those members of the party pre 2015 voted in favour of Owen Smith - those who joined the party post 2015 voted overwhelmingly in favour of Corbyn. In some ways this reveals a certain level of entryism as it's new members with no longstanding affiliation to the party who are mainly in support of Corbyn.
The problem Labour have had for years is the tension that exists in the party between the demands of pragmatism and winning power to enable change and that of principles and values and not wanting to compromise. This partly explains why Tony Blair's 3 election wins are not celebrated.
I'm a pragmatist and support the views of Labour moderates and MPs who understand that you cannot do anything without first achieving power.
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party is all about party members wrapping themselves up in a warm comfort blanket, feeling comfortable in their comfort zone. They don't want to do compromise and put forward policies and statements that reflect where many of the electorate actually are.
Politics is hard but by sticking to principles and never getting elected means principles are never put on the line. Tough decisions and compromises never have to be made. This might make people feel good but part of me thinks it's a bit gutless.
If the party is serious about winning the next election then it needs to reconnect with its traditional Northern working-class base, but the truth is Labour are culturally out of step with many of these people. This was reflected in Corbyn's announcement about immigration controls.
Secondly, Labour will have to win votes from some voters who voted Conservative in 2015 and 2010 but the sad and deluded fact is that some party members and activists don't want these votes. That's fine but you cannot win elections without appealing to some of these floating voters.
Does Corbyn's Labour Party even care? I don't think so!
My own personal problem with Corbyn's Labour Party and the hard left
Politics isn't just about policies and leadership or the ability to make the right decisions; it's also about gut feeling and instinct.
When it comes to the political spectrum I consider myself very much center-left. In that context the Labour Party is my natural political home, however my gut feeling tells me that under no circumstances can I ever vote for the Labour Party while Corbyn remains leader.
From a policy point of view, this week's conference has made clear that Labour are an unashamedly Socialist Party. I know this makes members feel good about themselves but I am a Social Democrat. I'm considered too right-wing for most Labour Party members who will most likely call me 'Tory lite' or a Blairite'. That's fine by me they shouldn't expect my vote.
But it goes much further than this. Do you remember last year when Corbyn was elected, promising a new kind of politics? A gentler politics?
I'm always sceptical when people put forward claims of a 'new politics.' Corbyn is presenting an updated version of traditional socialism. There's nothing new about socialism, I'm perfectly aware of it. It's been around since the 19th Century. Nationalising the railways for example is not radical new politics it's been done before.
Labour and the hard left like to consider themselves as progressives in their political objectives but in many cases they're incredibly conservative. They're conservative in the sense that they want to turn the clock back to a period (most likely before Margret Thatcher's election in 1979) to an imagined better age. In this sense they're simply a left-wing version of UKIP.
As for a kinder, gentler politics. That wish didn't last very long. I cannot remember a time when there has been so much bitterness and hatred exposed in politics but then anyone familiar with the hard left will know that such politics can be incredibly abusive, aggressive, bigoted and at times downright nasty. It's been made worse with social media. Anyone who disagrees with Corbyn and groups like Momentum are immediately denounced as Tories, Blairites, defenders of the Neo-Liberal consensus. It's so boring and pathetic.
There's been a marked increase in complaints of anti-semitism within the Labour Party but these complaints have been addressed only half hardheartedly and are generally considered to be part of a wider conspiracy against Corbyn. It's ridiculous.
I agree with the sentiment that Labour under Corbyn is at worst a personality cult! This is someone who has spent 30 years on the back benches. This is not someone who could be considered a political or intellectual heavyweight during that time, but here we are being led to believe by some that he will change the world whilst walking on water!
If we've learnt anything from the last week is that Jeremy Corbyn will almost certainly lead Labour into the next election. I won't be voting for him and to be honest I'm not sure I will vote for anyone. Labour under Corbyn represents a party and a form of left-wing politics that I'm uncomfortable with and is out of step with your average Briton.
Intellectually it has little to say to me or shows signs of wanting to address and deal with some of the big challenges we currently face (Brexit anyone). In truth I'm bored of Labour, Jeremy Corbyn and the hard left in this country. Labour will be led off a cliff at the next election, it's debatable whether they will recover.
I returned just in time to witness the response to Jeremy Corbyn's re-election as Labour Party leader. The result was of no surprise and Corbyn even increased the size of his vote. Regardless of what Corbyn supporters might say his victory is bad for the Labour Party and bad for democracy in the UK.
As a member of the GMB Union I voted in both this month's leadership election voting for Owen Smith, and in last year's election when I voted for Liz Kendall. I didn't think Jeremy Corbyn would be the right leader for the Labour Party in 2015 and the last 12 months have only confirmed my feelings that he is essentially killing the Labour Party.
I understand Corbyn's appeal, and I recognise that a lot of people in the country, particularly on the left are looking for something different in politics. It's not something unique to Britain. We've seen the rise in anti-establishment politics around the world. Donald Trump and Bennie Sanders are examples of this in America.
In Europe you have Podemos in Spain, the Five Star Movement in Italy, France's National Front and in Greece the far left party of Syriza are now in government. Corbyn is part of this protest movement.
The problem is that this protest movement should not and cannot be in charge a mainstream party like the Labour Party. The purpose of the Labour Party is to win power on behalf of working people. It is not a protest party which is what Labour has and will continue to be under Corbyn.
Labour: A party to please itself
I have to admit, I thought Corbyn gave a good speech at this week's Party Conference in Liverpool. It was well delivered and you can see that he has certainly grown into the role of Labour leader. But ultimately there was nothing in the speech or the conference as a whole to suggest anything other than a huge defeat for Labour at the next General Election.
If I have learnt anything about the success and popularity of the Jeremy Corbyn it's this. Labour has become a party that is run by and for the interests of its growing membership.
It's quite revealing that those members of the party pre 2015 voted in favour of Owen Smith - those who joined the party post 2015 voted overwhelmingly in favour of Corbyn. In some ways this reveals a certain level of entryism as it's new members with no longstanding affiliation to the party who are mainly in support of Corbyn.
The problem Labour have had for years is the tension that exists in the party between the demands of pragmatism and winning power to enable change and that of principles and values and not wanting to compromise. This partly explains why Tony Blair's 3 election wins are not celebrated.
I'm a pragmatist and support the views of Labour moderates and MPs who understand that you cannot do anything without first achieving power.
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party is all about party members wrapping themselves up in a warm comfort blanket, feeling comfortable in their comfort zone. They don't want to do compromise and put forward policies and statements that reflect where many of the electorate actually are.
Politics is hard but by sticking to principles and never getting elected means principles are never put on the line. Tough decisions and compromises never have to be made. This might make people feel good but part of me thinks it's a bit gutless.
If the party is serious about winning the next election then it needs to reconnect with its traditional Northern working-class base, but the truth is Labour are culturally out of step with many of these people. This was reflected in Corbyn's announcement about immigration controls.
Secondly, Labour will have to win votes from some voters who voted Conservative in 2015 and 2010 but the sad and deluded fact is that some party members and activists don't want these votes. That's fine but you cannot win elections without appealing to some of these floating voters.
Does Corbyn's Labour Party even care? I don't think so!
My own personal problem with Corbyn's Labour Party and the hard left
Politics isn't just about policies and leadership or the ability to make the right decisions; it's also about gut feeling and instinct.
When it comes to the political spectrum I consider myself very much center-left. In that context the Labour Party is my natural political home, however my gut feeling tells me that under no circumstances can I ever vote for the Labour Party while Corbyn remains leader.
From a policy point of view, this week's conference has made clear that Labour are an unashamedly Socialist Party. I know this makes members feel good about themselves but I am a Social Democrat. I'm considered too right-wing for most Labour Party members who will most likely call me 'Tory lite' or a Blairite'. That's fine by me they shouldn't expect my vote.
But it goes much further than this. Do you remember last year when Corbyn was elected, promising a new kind of politics? A gentler politics?
I'm always sceptical when people put forward claims of a 'new politics.' Corbyn is presenting an updated version of traditional socialism. There's nothing new about socialism, I'm perfectly aware of it. It's been around since the 19th Century. Nationalising the railways for example is not radical new politics it's been done before.
Labour and the hard left like to consider themselves as progressives in their political objectives but in many cases they're incredibly conservative. They're conservative in the sense that they want to turn the clock back to a period (most likely before Margret Thatcher's election in 1979) to an imagined better age. In this sense they're simply a left-wing version of UKIP.
As for a kinder, gentler politics. That wish didn't last very long. I cannot remember a time when there has been so much bitterness and hatred exposed in politics but then anyone familiar with the hard left will know that such politics can be incredibly abusive, aggressive, bigoted and at times downright nasty. It's been made worse with social media. Anyone who disagrees with Corbyn and groups like Momentum are immediately denounced as Tories, Blairites, defenders of the Neo-Liberal consensus. It's so boring and pathetic.
There's been a marked increase in complaints of anti-semitism within the Labour Party but these complaints have been addressed only half hardheartedly and are generally considered to be part of a wider conspiracy against Corbyn. It's ridiculous.
I agree with the sentiment that Labour under Corbyn is at worst a personality cult! This is someone who has spent 30 years on the back benches. This is not someone who could be considered a political or intellectual heavyweight during that time, but here we are being led to believe by some that he will change the world whilst walking on water!
If we've learnt anything from the last week is that Jeremy Corbyn will almost certainly lead Labour into the next election. I won't be voting for him and to be honest I'm not sure I will vote for anyone. Labour under Corbyn represents a party and a form of left-wing politics that I'm uncomfortable with and is out of step with your average Briton.
Intellectually it has little to say to me or shows signs of wanting to address and deal with some of the big challenges we currently face (Brexit anyone). In truth I'm bored of Labour, Jeremy Corbyn and the hard left in this country. Labour will be led off a cliff at the next election, it's debatable whether they will recover.
Tuesday, 23 August 2016
Rio Olympics: When did Team GB become a sporting giant?
When I first started watching the Olympics in the 80s and early 90s If Britain won 5 Gold medals that was usually considered a success. By the time I watched my fourth Olympics in Atlanta in 96 Britain finished 36th in the medals table and only one gold medal.
To see Great Britain re-invent itself as a sporting powerhouse over the last 3 Olympics still takes a little getting use to but don’t worry I’m not complaining about it, I’m loving it!
At the start of this summer’s Olympics I thought realistically the best we could hope for was to finish third behind the USA and China. To beat China into second place is incredible!
What’s been really great to see, is that we’ve continued to win medals in our strongest events like cycling, rowing and sailing but we’ve now become successful in sports like gymnastics where Max Whitlock won 2 gold medals. For most of my life I simply accepted that Britain couldn’t do gymnastics.
So the question everyone is asking is how have we become world beaters? From the nadir of 1996 it’s clear that lottery funding has transformed British sport. But it’s not just the money that’s being spent it’s how it is allocated that’s been crucial.
Every sport has its Olympic target in terms of medals they should be winning. Those sports that meet and exceed their targets like cycling get an increase in lottery funding, those that fail see a decrease. Success is rewarded and failure is punished. This may be harsh but after London 2012 Britain’s swimming team has their funding reduced after failing to meet their targets but this time in Rio they’ve had one of their most successful ever Olympics.
What’s really changed in the last 10 – 15 years is that there has been better funding for our Olympic sports and structures have been put in place that create, nurture and sustain successful athletes.
Britain has always been a sporting nation but in previous Olympics our culture seemed to be one of ‘it’s the taking part that counts’. We had too much of the old amateur ethos.
We didn’t have the attitude of the old Soviet Union or today’s China who view sport as a way of showcasing national power and prestige. We occasionally won individual gold medals but that was a result of individual athletes succeeding on their own terms.
Today, in sports such as cycling, our athletes succeed not only because they have the talent, ability and desire to win but because they are part of a much bigger system that generates success. This is the key difference for me.
I certainly don’t miss the days of Team GB winning a handful of medals at Olympics, I always thought we underachieved, now we’re punching above our weight and it feels good. It’s inspiring to see athletes from all different backgrounds and all walks of life succeed in a variety of sports.
We don’t need to win to prove a point to the rest of the world. We can win because we want to be the best that we can be and this is what I love about our Olympic athletes.
To see Great Britain re-invent itself as a sporting powerhouse over the last 3 Olympics still takes a little getting use to but don’t worry I’m not complaining about it, I’m loving it!
At the start of this summer’s Olympics I thought realistically the best we could hope for was to finish third behind the USA and China. To beat China into second place is incredible!
It's official, #GBR have finished 2⃣nd in the Medals Table!
— Team GB (@TeamGB) August 22, 2016
How's that for some #MondayMotivation!... 💪👌👏 pic.twitter.com/F1HL1OsK8C
What’s been really great to see, is that we’ve continued to win medals in our strongest events like cycling, rowing and sailing but we’ve now become successful in sports like gymnastics where Max Whitlock won 2 gold medals. For most of my life I simply accepted that Britain couldn’t do gymnastics.
So the question everyone is asking is how have we become world beaters? From the nadir of 1996 it’s clear that lottery funding has transformed British sport. But it’s not just the money that’s being spent it’s how it is allocated that’s been crucial.
Every sport has its Olympic target in terms of medals they should be winning. Those sports that meet and exceed their targets like cycling get an increase in lottery funding, those that fail see a decrease. Success is rewarded and failure is punished. This may be harsh but after London 2012 Britain’s swimming team has their funding reduced after failing to meet their targets but this time in Rio they’ve had one of their most successful ever Olympics.
What’s really changed in the last 10 – 15 years is that there has been better funding for our Olympic sports and structures have been put in place that create, nurture and sustain successful athletes.
Britain has always been a sporting nation but in previous Olympics our culture seemed to be one of ‘it’s the taking part that counts’. We had too much of the old amateur ethos.
We didn’t have the attitude of the old Soviet Union or today’s China who view sport as a way of showcasing national power and prestige. We occasionally won individual gold medals but that was a result of individual athletes succeeding on their own terms.
Today, in sports such as cycling, our athletes succeed not only because they have the talent, ability and desire to win but because they are part of a much bigger system that generates success. This is the key difference for me.
I certainly don’t miss the days of Team GB winning a handful of medals at Olympics, I always thought we underachieved, now we’re punching above our weight and it feels good. It’s inspiring to see athletes from all different backgrounds and all walks of life succeed in a variety of sports.
We don’t need to win to prove a point to the rest of the world. We can win because we want to be the best that we can be and this is what I love about our Olympic athletes.
Saturday, 13 August 2016
The cost of the Olympics pose awkward questions for the future
It's been quite a low key start to this year's Olympics.
There hasn't been the same level of buzz and excitement in the lead up to Rio's Games. I think there's a couple of reasons for this.
Firstly after our own London Games in 2012 it was always going to be difficult to have the same level of excitement. Secondly, within Brazil itself the Games seem to have arrived at just the wrong time with the country mired in economic and political problems.
Rio's opening ceremony costs and production were scaled back and made simpler in response to the economic situation inside the country. Just like with our London Games, the situation in Brazil has raised questions on the purpose and supposed benefits that having the Olympics can bring to a city and country.
I think this debate is more pertinent in a country like Brazil when you consider the extreme levels of inequality that exist. It becomes increasingly difficult to support holding an event like the Olympics when so many of the local inhabitants are living in poverty.
The beach front on Ipenema and leblon
This got me thinking about the debate of hosting not just the Olympics but also World Cups. They are the two biggest and most prestigious sporting events in the world. But as we found with our own Olympics, when countries are asked to spend billions hosting these events on behalf of the IOC and FIFA there are legitimate questions on what the benefits will be for the host city and country in the short and long-term.
On a personal level, I visited Rio in 2013. I took a tour of the city's most famous Favela, Rochina. To say the experience was an eye opener would be an understatement. After spending my first few days in the affluent beach districts of Leblon and Ipenema, visiting Rochina (20 minutes away) was like travelling to a different country. I remember asking my tour guide whether the 2014 World Cup and Rio Olympics would really make a difference to communities like Rochina.
There have been improvements and after decades of neglect, the Brazilian government has made more of an effort to address the problems of Brazil's poor. However, with the economy in Brazil now struggling, justifying the Olympics in a city like Rio is quite difficult.
View of Rochina, Rio's biggest Favela
The IOC and FIFA are now at a point where there are only so many countries in the world that have the resources and infrastructure to hold these events. In Western democracies, governments simply can't spend billions on these events without justifying them to their electorate. The problem for the likes of the IOC are that more countries are looking at the cost of the Olympics and deciding they can do without them.
For the 2018 Winter Olympics the IOC were faced with the embarrassing situation of potential host cities failing to get enough backing from their public during the bid process.
Apparently the IOC had their hearts set on Oslo, Norway. They wanted a Winter Olympics back in Europe and in a country with a tradition of winter sports. Unfortunately, Norway had different ideas.
Local news out-lets got hold of the IOC's outlandish demands for their elite committee members. Once this became public, the Norwegian people said thanks but no thanks and decided they didn't want the Olympic Games.
In the end the 2018 Winter Olympics were awarded to China, but China isn't a democracy and the Chinese Communist Party can do what they like without having to be held accountable to the Chinese people.
How many cities and countries realistically want to host the Olympic Games, have the resources and infrastructure and the backing of their own populations?
I think we're getting to a point where there's a small number of countries and cities that can hold the Olympics. A thought I have is that perhaps we should look at selecting a group of cities around the world, perhaps 10 and say you will hold the Olympics over the course of the next 50 years and rotate the Olympics between these chosen cities.
London would definitely be a member of that group, elsewhere in Europe you could include Paris who seem an obvious European choice but after Tokyo's turn in 2020 where does the Olympics go next? Who wants and can realistically host it?
These are legitimate questions that need to be asked. As much as I love sport and the Olympics, it simply isn't appropriate to hold such lavish and vast sporting events if they do not have the backing of the host population; and if they don't provide any long term tangible benefits and for those people.
There hasn't been the same level of buzz and excitement in the lead up to Rio's Games. I think there's a couple of reasons for this.
Firstly after our own London Games in 2012 it was always going to be difficult to have the same level of excitement. Secondly, within Brazil itself the Games seem to have arrived at just the wrong time with the country mired in economic and political problems.
Rio's opening ceremony costs and production were scaled back and made simpler in response to the economic situation inside the country. Just like with our London Games, the situation in Brazil has raised questions on the purpose and supposed benefits that having the Olympics can bring to a city and country.
I think this debate is more pertinent in a country like Brazil when you consider the extreme levels of inequality that exist. It becomes increasingly difficult to support holding an event like the Olympics when so many of the local inhabitants are living in poverty.
This got me thinking about the debate of hosting not just the Olympics but also World Cups. They are the two biggest and most prestigious sporting events in the world. But as we found with our own Olympics, when countries are asked to spend billions hosting these events on behalf of the IOC and FIFA there are legitimate questions on what the benefits will be for the host city and country in the short and long-term.
On a personal level, I visited Rio in 2013. I took a tour of the city's most famous Favela, Rochina. To say the experience was an eye opener would be an understatement. After spending my first few days in the affluent beach districts of Leblon and Ipenema, visiting Rochina (20 minutes away) was like travelling to a different country. I remember asking my tour guide whether the 2014 World Cup and Rio Olympics would really make a difference to communities like Rochina.
There have been improvements and after decades of neglect, the Brazilian government has made more of an effort to address the problems of Brazil's poor. However, with the economy in Brazil now struggling, justifying the Olympics in a city like Rio is quite difficult.
View of Rochina, Rio's biggest Favela
The IOC and FIFA are now at a point where there are only so many countries in the world that have the resources and infrastructure to hold these events. In Western democracies, governments simply can't spend billions on these events without justifying them to their electorate. The problem for the likes of the IOC are that more countries are looking at the cost of the Olympics and deciding they can do without them.
For the 2018 Winter Olympics the IOC were faced with the embarrassing situation of potential host cities failing to get enough backing from their public during the bid process.
Apparently the IOC had their hearts set on Oslo, Norway. They wanted a Winter Olympics back in Europe and in a country with a tradition of winter sports. Unfortunately, Norway had different ideas.
Local news out-lets got hold of the IOC's outlandish demands for their elite committee members. Once this became public, the Norwegian people said thanks but no thanks and decided they didn't want the Olympic Games.
In the end the 2018 Winter Olympics were awarded to China, but China isn't a democracy and the Chinese Communist Party can do what they like without having to be held accountable to the Chinese people.
How many cities and countries realistically want to host the Olympic Games, have the resources and infrastructure and the backing of their own populations?
I think we're getting to a point where there's a small number of countries and cities that can hold the Olympics. A thought I have is that perhaps we should look at selecting a group of cities around the world, perhaps 10 and say you will hold the Olympics over the course of the next 50 years and rotate the Olympics between these chosen cities.
London would definitely be a member of that group, elsewhere in Europe you could include Paris who seem an obvious European choice but after Tokyo's turn in 2020 where does the Olympics go next? Who wants and can realistically host it?
These are legitimate questions that need to be asked. As much as I love sport and the Olympics, it simply isn't appropriate to hold such lavish and vast sporting events if they do not have the backing of the host population; and if they don't provide any long term tangible benefits and for those people.
Monday, 11 July 2016
The Conservative Party Leadership: What a drama
After last month's Brexit referendum result and David Cameron's decision to resign it was assumed that we'd now be in the midst of the Conservative Party leadership election with Boris Johnson odds on favourite to become the country's new Prime Minister.
If a week is a long time in politics then last month's referendum now feels like a life time ago. Rather then the Boris Johnson coronation many expected we instead have Theresa May as our new Prime Minister.
Everything is moving so fast at the moment in British politics I can't ever remember a time like it.
Boris Johnson's campaign crashed and burned within a week of the Brexit result and it many ways it was hardly surprising. After successfully convincing over 50% of referendum voters to vote for Brexit it quickly became obvious that Boris and his Brexit colleagues didn't have any immediate plan on what would happen next. Despite this, nobody really expected Michael Gove to politically stab Boris in the back by launching his own bid for Tory leader, and thereby derail Boris' long term political ambition.
As brutal as it all seems, I don't have much sympathy for Boris or any other politician when this sort of thing happens. This is the life they chose, a bit like mafia mob bosses who end up getting 'whacked'. It's an occupational hazard.
Besides, I'm very much in agreement with Ken Clarke when I say the idea of Boris as Prime Minister is ridiculous. It always baffled me as to why Boris had so much support amongst some Tories. Boris is clearly a very clever and able person but he's also someone who has blagged and winged his way through his career.
When you look at some of his gaffes and his personal and professional behavior over the last 20 years, it's incredible that he was even in the running to become Prime Minister. Boris has always been a unique one-off. If it was anyone else their career would have been finished years ago.
If the appeal of Boris Johnson has always baffled some, it doesn't quite compare to the extraordinary rise of Andrea Leadsom.
I'd never heard of her 4 weeks ago, yet somehow she made it to the last two for Tory Party members to decide who should be our PM. Thankfully and quite rightly, she's now withdrawn following the ridiculous interview she gave to the Times, where she insinuated that because she has children and Theresa May doesn't she has a 'tangible stake' in society.
When I first heard that I thought' 'Are you really going to go there?' As part of her humiliating climb down she then accused the Paper of gutter journalism despite the fact that the paper simply quoted exactly what she had said.
When it comes to Andrea Leadsom, the country has dodged a bullet. She was far too inexperienced for the role and far too right wing for my liking. She would have been a disaster.
So here we are with a new Prime Minister. You have to have a certain amount of respect for the way the Tory Party ruthlessly operates when it comes to getting rid of and electing their leaders. You can't help but think: Are you watching Labour, when you consider the shambles of Labour MPs in their attempts to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn.
I'm glad it's Theresa May has been elected. As a non Tory voter I can live with her. It's good to have another female PM and it's also good that she's slightly older. In the last few decades there's been a preference for younger leaders but with so many difficult and pressing issues facing world leaders I think it's good that we again look at older politicians with more experience.
There's no doubt that we're entering a new era in British politics and history and it's going to be fascinating to see how Theresa May and this new Conservative government will tackle Brexit.
If a week is a long time in politics then last month's referendum now feels like a life time ago. Rather then the Boris Johnson coronation many expected we instead have Theresa May as our new Prime Minister.
Everything is moving so fast at the moment in British politics I can't ever remember a time like it.
Boris Johnson's campaign crashed and burned within a week of the Brexit result and it many ways it was hardly surprising. After successfully convincing over 50% of referendum voters to vote for Brexit it quickly became obvious that Boris and his Brexit colleagues didn't have any immediate plan on what would happen next. Despite this, nobody really expected Michael Gove to politically stab Boris in the back by launching his own bid for Tory leader, and thereby derail Boris' long term political ambition.
As brutal as it all seems, I don't have much sympathy for Boris or any other politician when this sort of thing happens. This is the life they chose, a bit like mafia mob bosses who end up getting 'whacked'. It's an occupational hazard.
Besides, I'm very much in agreement with Ken Clarke when I say the idea of Boris as Prime Minister is ridiculous. It always baffled me as to why Boris had so much support amongst some Tories. Boris is clearly a very clever and able person but he's also someone who has blagged and winged his way through his career.
When you look at some of his gaffes and his personal and professional behavior over the last 20 years, it's incredible that he was even in the running to become Prime Minister. Boris has always been a unique one-off. If it was anyone else their career would have been finished years ago.
If the appeal of Boris Johnson has always baffled some, it doesn't quite compare to the extraordinary rise of Andrea Leadsom.
I'd never heard of her 4 weeks ago, yet somehow she made it to the last two for Tory Party members to decide who should be our PM. Thankfully and quite rightly, she's now withdrawn following the ridiculous interview she gave to the Times, where she insinuated that because she has children and Theresa May doesn't she has a 'tangible stake' in society.
When I first heard that I thought' 'Are you really going to go there?' As part of her humiliating climb down she then accused the Paper of gutter journalism despite the fact that the paper simply quoted exactly what she had said.
When it comes to Andrea Leadsom, the country has dodged a bullet. She was far too inexperienced for the role and far too right wing for my liking. She would have been a disaster.
So here we are with a new Prime Minister. You have to have a certain amount of respect for the way the Tory Party ruthlessly operates when it comes to getting rid of and electing their leaders. You can't help but think: Are you watching Labour, when you consider the shambles of Labour MPs in their attempts to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn.
I'm glad it's Theresa May has been elected. As a non Tory voter I can live with her. It's good to have another female PM and it's also good that she's slightly older. In the last few decades there's been a preference for younger leaders but with so many difficult and pressing issues facing world leaders I think it's good that we again look at older politicians with more experience.
There's no doubt that we're entering a new era in British politics and history and it's going to be fascinating to see how Theresa May and this new Conservative government will tackle Brexit.
Saturday, 9 July 2016
The Chilcot Report
Another dramatic week in British politics with the long awaited publication of the Chilcot report into the Iraq War.
It was a pretty damning indictment of Tony Blair's decision to take the country into war and his reputation now lays in tatters.
When I considered many of the main findings it confirmed to many people what we already knew or suspected about the decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein.
Back in 2002/2003 in the run up to the Iraq War, at no point did I ever believe that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. If he did possess them I certainly didn't believe he posed any kind of threat to the UK. The Chilcot Report confirms much of this.
What was clear between 2001 - 2003 was that a decision had been made by President George Bush and his Neo-Con allies that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. This decision was made in the aftermath of 9/11.
The United States were always going to invade Iraq and there was little that Britain could have said or done to stop this from happening. The question for this country was whether it was right for Tony Blair to ally himself so closely with America in this decision to go to war.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it's clear that Tony Blair and those who supported the decision to go to war got it wrong. History has judged this decision even more harshly when you consider the utter chaos consumed Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam.
What is perhaps most damning and shameful is the total lack of planning on how Iraq would be governed following regime change. You tend to find that countries that have been ruled for decades by dictators maintain a certain level of stability. However once those leaders are removed the power vacuum that emerges unleashes a whole number of political, cultural and ethnic forces that can be uncontrollable.
This is exactly what we've seen in Iraq. Perhaps if there had been better planning on how Iraq might look after Saddam's removal and the sectarian violence kept under control, we might be looking back on the decision to go to war in a different light.
One thing I did agree with Tony Blair on is that we can't say with 100% how Iraq would look had we not removed Saddam Hussein.
In 2011 we witnessed a number of uprising across the Middle East which was called the 'Arab Spring'. Government and leaders such as Colonel Gaddafi were removed from power. The uprising in Syria has resulted in the prolonged civil war which continues to this day.
Are we meant to believe that Saddam Hussein and Iraq would have been immune from this uprising across the region? It's perfectly conceivable that Iraq could have turned into another Syria. We will never know but it's a distinct possibility.
The decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake, and its repercussions have and continue to influence the level of trust we have in politicians and the country's foreign policy.
In terms of Tony Blair, it's not fashionable to say but I always thought he was quite a good leader and there were a lot of things that he and New Labour achieved that were of benefit to the country. Many will disagree but what's sad is that his reputation now lies in tatters and he will always be associated with Iraq.
It was a pretty damning indictment of Tony Blair's decision to take the country into war and his reputation now lays in tatters.
Sir John #Chilcot has published his #IraqWar report.
— BBC Radio 5 live (@bbc5live) 6 July 2016
Coverage: https://t.co/UQMSd5TKbb
Here are six key findings: pic.twitter.com/SfrAtn8Nx5
When I considered many of the main findings it confirmed to many people what we already knew or suspected about the decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein.
Back in 2002/2003 in the run up to the Iraq War, at no point did I ever believe that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. If he did possess them I certainly didn't believe he posed any kind of threat to the UK. The Chilcot Report confirms much of this.
What was clear between 2001 - 2003 was that a decision had been made by President George Bush and his Neo-Con allies that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. This decision was made in the aftermath of 9/11.
The United States were always going to invade Iraq and there was little that Britain could have said or done to stop this from happening. The question for this country was whether it was right for Tony Blair to ally himself so closely with America in this decision to go to war.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it's clear that Tony Blair and those who supported the decision to go to war got it wrong. History has judged this decision even more harshly when you consider the utter chaos consumed Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam.
What is perhaps most damning and shameful is the total lack of planning on how Iraq would be governed following regime change. You tend to find that countries that have been ruled for decades by dictators maintain a certain level of stability. However once those leaders are removed the power vacuum that emerges unleashes a whole number of political, cultural and ethnic forces that can be uncontrollable.
This is exactly what we've seen in Iraq. Perhaps if there had been better planning on how Iraq might look after Saddam's removal and the sectarian violence kept under control, we might be looking back on the decision to go to war in a different light.
One thing I did agree with Tony Blair on is that we can't say with 100% how Iraq would look had we not removed Saddam Hussein.
In 2011 we witnessed a number of uprising across the Middle East which was called the 'Arab Spring'. Government and leaders such as Colonel Gaddafi were removed from power. The uprising in Syria has resulted in the prolonged civil war which continues to this day.
Are we meant to believe that Saddam Hussein and Iraq would have been immune from this uprising across the region? It's perfectly conceivable that Iraq could have turned into another Syria. We will never know but it's a distinct possibility.
The decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake, and its repercussions have and continue to influence the level of trust we have in politicians and the country's foreign policy.
In terms of Tony Blair, it's not fashionable to say but I always thought he was quite a good leader and there were a lot of things that he and New Labour achieved that were of benefit to the country. Many will disagree but what's sad is that his reputation now lies in tatters and he will always be associated with Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)