Brown survives for now, but for how long?

At the beginning of this week, it seemed as if Gordon Brown had managed to hold on to his job despite a disastrous week of cabinet resignations, humiliating election defeats, failed reshuffle attempts, and backbench plots to oust him from power.

I’d originally wanted to blog about Brown’s problems last week, but so much was happening on a daily basis, I thought if I post anything it’s going to be out of date within a day, or I’m going to miss some major development. I think finally, now is an appropriate moment to look back and evaluate things.

I don’t believe Brown has any chance at all of leading Labour to victory at the next General Election, instead his leadership is likely to result in a crushing defeat similar to that suffered by the Conservatives in 1997.

I thought it was a significant moment when the Guardian newspaper came out last Wednesday calling for Brown to go. As a leader of the Labour party, you know you’re in serious trouble when even the Guardian has totally given up on you.

Since coming to power, Brown has failed to put in place a clear vision or idea of what his Premiership is all about. There seemed to be this popular opinion that under Brown, he would return Labour to its more natural political beliefs and values, and move away from New Labour.

The only problem with this, is that Brown was as much responsible for the creation of New Labour as Tony Blair, but Brown supporters have tried to bury this idea. What we now have is government in its third term of office, which is now exhausted and has run out of ideas.

Secondly there is Brown’s personality. I actually believe that Brown is overall a decent and principled politician, but there are aspects of his character and personality, which in power have proved to be a hindrance to him.

At the weekend it was revealed that Peter Mandelson had once written an email to Derek Draper in which he discussed Brown’s character flaws, labelling him ‘insecure’ ‘self conscious’ and ‘angry’.

None of this information is particularly new, these character traits have been well known for years. What I do believe is that in power, parts of his personality have meant that he’s struggled to deliver his message effectively to the public, whilst his relationship with many government ministers has been poor which has resulted in alienating colleagues and driving them towards resignation.

Finally we still have the Blair/Brown split in the party, which has existed since Labour came to power. Having pushed for Blair’s removal for so long, it’s hardly surprising that Blairite ministers are the last people supporting Brown.

Personally I think Brown should be replaced sooner rather than later, a new leader should be installed and a General Election called for sometime in the autumn. This is unlikely to happen now, and instead we’re all going to have to watch the painful sight of a tired, weak government stumble on until next year, happy to hang on to power purely for the sake of having power.

Following the resignation of James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Minister, no leading figure within the Cabinet seemed to have the guts to come forward and take the initiative. That opportunity has gone now, and we’ll have wait and see if another challenge will emerge in the coming months.

For me, although the Tories would be favourites to win any election called today, I don’t believe it’s a complete formality that they would cruise to victory. The Tories still require a significant swing in votes in order to get elected with a healthy majority.

Secondly there are still areas of Tory policy that at best could be described as patchy, and at worst non-existent. Does anyone know what the Tories foreign policy is for example?

Finally, although voters are looking more favourably at the Conservative Party, I don’t detect the same wave of enthusiasm for them in the same way that people had for New Labour under Tony Blair during the mid 1990s.

With a new leader in charge it’s quite possible that we could end up with a hung-parliament at the next election, which would be a fascinating development.

On Monday this week, Brown faced Labour backbenchers and promised that he would try to change, I’m doubtful that he can do this, and interestingly enough I read that this was an opinion that even Tony Blair held during his time as PM. All I can see is Brown and the Labour government stumbling from one problem to the next until we have a General Election.

Federer: One of the all-time greats!

Yesterday's French Open victory for Roger Federer surely confirmed him as one of the all time greats of tennis if not the greatest player to have ever played the game. After Raphael Nadal's shock defeat earlier in the tournament, I along with most other tennis fans wondered whether Federer could seize the moment and achieve the ultimate tennis prize by claiming the elusive Grand Slam.

I have to say that I was really pleased for him. No matter what sports you follow it's always a privilege to know when you're watching one the true greats of that particular sport.

Even after Nadal's defeat you couldn't say with 100% certainty that Federer would go onto to claim the French Open title. Regardless of how great a Champion he is, I was sure that there must have been doubts and anxieties in his own mind as he progressed through the rounds.

Federer even admitted this himself when he spoke about the difficulty in maintaining his focus during the final, and not getting carried away with thoughts of what winning the tournament would mean for him and his place in history.

It's easy to forget sometimes just how difficult it is to complete the Men's Grand Slam in tennis. In 25 years of following tennis Federer is only the second player I've watched to have done so. Andre Agassi did it in 1999 and Federer is now one of only six players in the history of tennis.

It really is something special when you begin to look back at some of the great players from previous eras who couldn't complete the Grand Slam. Names such as Sampras, Becker, McEnroe, Conners, and Borg. None of whom managed to win the French Open except for Borg.

Playing on clay seems to present a totally different set of challenges then grass and hard courts, but it should be remembered that Federer had played in 3 previous French Open finals so he was no 'mug' as they say on the surface, he just happened to come up against the greatest clay court player ever in Nadal!

The question now is that after completing the Grand Slam and equaling Sampras' record of 14 Slam titles, how many more can he win? I think he could potentially reach 20. He's still only 27 and I can see him playing for at least another 5 to 6 years.

Of course we still have Nadal who could quite easily do the Grand Slam as well if he wins the US Open, but there are issues concerning the state of his knees. The way he plays, he puts a huge amount of pressure on his body so we'll have to see how many years at the top he still has left.

Out of the two I think I've always been very much a Nadal fan, as I've always loved his raw power and aggression in his play more so than Federer’s cool, calm, classic style. I did however become really endeared to Federer following his defeat to Nadal at the Australian Open this year.

When giving his congratulatory speech to Nadal he broke down in tears as the pain of another defeat to Nadal began to sink in. At that moment the respect I had for him grew even greater as I thought that's what a real champion is all about. Despite the countless Grand Slams and career wins, he still had that desire to keep winning, to keep breaking records, and the pain of losing still meant so much to him.

Public Art - What is it for?

Over the last couple of weeks I’ve been watching a programme on Channel Four called The Big Art Project. It’s a project that the channel has put in place supported by the Arts Council England, which gives members of the public the opportunity to select some form of public art for their local community.

Back in 2005 the channel asked the public to get involved in its Big Art Project. In response to this the channel received over 1400 applications from people who wanted some type of art to be commissioned for a space within their local area.

A selection panel went through all of the applications, travelling around the country, meeting nominators, funders, and local authorities; before eventually deciding on seven sites in the UK which would be put forward for the project. The series which ran throughout May focussed on these seven sites, and how people from each local community worked with curators and artists in deciding what type of art should be created for their particular area.

It’s been an interesting and enjoyable series to watch as it raised the question of what purpose public art actually plays for people. I thought the series highlighted that public art can be something which can help to unite and bring people together, change their feelings and perceptions of themselves and the area that they live in, and work towards regenerating and rebranding communities.

The immediate question that occurred to me, and which was raised during the series was this; How do you get people to join together to produce a form of public art when art can be such a personal, subjective, and controversial subject for so many people?

I really admired the way that many of the people featured were really passionate about what sort of art they wanted within their local area, and what that art should represent and say about the community and the people in it.

Sometimes I think modern art can be perceived by the public as being something that is remote and distant to the lives of ordinary people. You have elements of the art world who at times can patronise the public in regards to their tastes, assuming that many people don’t really know or understand what good cutting edge art is all about.

What I loved about this series was that it showed how the public and artists could work together to produce a piece of public art, whereby on the one hand you have the artists and curators who have their own expert knowledge, skills, and experience of the art world, working alongside the public who have this desire to create something which represents themselves and the area in which they live, and isn't something which is just imposed upon them by artworld outsiders.

By coincidence one programme looked at other examples of public art in cities around the world, one of which was Chicago which I happened to visit during the series.

In Chicago they have a park called Millennim Park which was opened in 2004. The park was designed to be more than just a public space, but for somewhere where sculpture, design and architecture could be promoted and celebrated. The idea of the park was first conceived in 1997 as a way to create a new parkland within the bigger Grant Park and transform what was previously an area of unsightly railroad tracks and parking lots.

The park is now one of most popular and biggest tourist attractions for visitors to the city. The most prominent features within the park incldue the Jay Pritzker Pavillion designed by Frank Gehry which holds a number of outdoor concerts and events, and then probably most peoples favourite attraction the ‘Cloud Gate’ sculpture more commonly referred to as ‘The Bean’ designed by the British artist Anish Kapoor.


The Jay Pritzker Pavillion

As a piece of public art I thought the Cloud Gate sculpture was superb, not only in its design but in the way in which it acted as a real focal point for the park and for locals and tourists to gather around.


The Cloud Gate sculpture

Having done some reading up about the sculpture, I found out that it was supposedly inspired by liquid mecury. That’s not what I immediately thought of when viewing it for the first time, but when you think about it and look at it again, it does make sense and you can see the influence. In explaining his thought process behind the sculpture Kapoor said:

“What I wanted to do in Millennium Park is make something that would engage the Chicago skyline so that one will see the clouds kind of floating in, with those very tall building reflected in the work”


I certainly feel that Kapoor achieved this aim, as the sculpture gives you the opportunity of viewing the city skyline and the city itself in a different way. He’s also designed something which takes into consideration what already previously exists, in the form the city skyline. It’s as if the sculpture is an extension of the city itself and for me this is what good public art should be about, it should show some form of acknowledgment of what already exists within the public space and community in which it is set.

I’m certainly not an expert in public art, but in many ways it helped me identify more with those people featured in Channel Four's series. After I came back from Chicago, I had a greater sense of how art can play a role in peoples lives and change and enhance public areas. I think it's really important that the public do get involved in such projects, and have a say in what is displayed in public areas in the name of public art.

Click on the title heading to view Channel Four’s Big Art Project website and find out more about the seven UK sites chosen for the project and their attempts at producing different forms of public art for their communities.

What next for Susan Boyle?

After the final of Britain’s Got Talent over the weekend, it was revealed today that the runner-up and competition favourite Susan Boyle had been admitted to the Priory Clinic suffering from emotional exhaustion. According to reports she was rushed to the Priory after beginning to act strangely following her defeat to the dance group Diversity.

It’s been well documented that Boyle has a mild learning disability, and up until her appearance on the show had led quite a sheltered and protected life in Scotland. Her rise to fame has clearly been meteoric, and the stress and attention focussed on her would be difficult for most people to deal with. Taking all of this into consideration, I’m interested in looking at how the show's management intend to provide the necessary support and help that Boyle will need over the forthcoming months.

I think this poses a big challenge to the show along with other reality TV programmes in terms how they support potentially vulnerable people who have been catapulted into the public eye.

Up until last week I hadn’t watched any of BGT, but I was obviously aware of Susan Boyle. Clearly in her first appearance she was set up as the middle aged, unattractive spinister, who would surely humiliate herself on national television. Instead she shocked everyone with her singing ability and the phenomenon began.

With shows like BGT and X Factor it's not just about contestants having real talent and ability, it’s also about having a story to tell. The stories are usually about achieving a dream, overcoming various set backs in life, trying to realise your ambitions in memory of dead relative. I do get fed up sometimes with the ‘emotional blackmail’ these programmes try to inflict upon you. In Boyle’s case her back-story was brilliant for the show and slightly different from other contestants.

With Boyle’s back story I think it’s going to be interesting and quite challenging to see how the show goes forward in marketing and managing her, particularly as such shows do not always have a great track record of supporting contestants once the cameras have gone, and public interest has moved on.

A couple of months ago I read a feature in the Sunday Times magazine entitled ‘What happens to X factor runners up?’ It looked at how previous finalists on the show had fared, and to be honest it was quite a mixed bag in terms of the stories people had to tell. What comes across is how the first 6 months provide the biggest opportunity of cashing in on their new found fame, but the show’s management company also look at this period as being best opportunity of making the most profit out of the contestants.

Once key management lose their interest, many contestants are left to sink or swim by themselves in the daunting world of the entertainment industry. One previous contestant Andy Abraham (runner-up in 2005) gave his opinion on what contestants can expect following the end of the show.

“They’ll realise quickly, that the industry doesn’t want them.”

Will the industry still want Susan Boyle in 12 months time? A backlash against her already began to emerge a couple of weeks ago, but I wonder whether once people move on from the novelty of her looks and the fact that she can actually sing, will anyone be interested in her story? The way that she looks and her background in Scotland is surely the great appeal about her. If she suddenly received a glossy make-over and began to live a celebrity lifestyle wouldn’t her original appeal be lost?

I have no idea how this story is going to play out in the next few months and even years but it’s going to be fascinating to watch. I’m wondering whether the show’s producers and management have some sort of moral responsibility to ensure that Boyle is provided with the appropriate support necessary, in order for her to fulfil her ambitions and to cope with the pressures and challenges that this new found fame will bring to her. Can they really afford to dump her when she’s no longer of interest or making money in the same way that has happened with previous X Factor contestants? I’m not sure the viewing public would accept that kind of behaviour, but I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see.

No Sympathy for Newcastle, but respect going out to Barca!

With the end of the football season drawing to a close, I've watched 2 matches in the last couple of days. Firstly on Sunday I managed to find an Irish pub in Chicago (full on Man U fans!) and watched Newcastle get relegated at Villa, and then yesterday back in England, I watched Barcelona put on one of the best displays I've seen in a European final to beat Man Utd and win the Champions League. If you compare the state of the two clubs it was like going from the ridiculous to the sublime!

Following Newcastle's relegation the BBC commentator Jonathan Pearce talked of how cruel and heartless the Premier League can be to teams. I thought, 'here we go again, another ridiculous statement about Newcastle Utd from the Media'. Newcastle's relegation has been in the making for the last 3-4 seasons and they got exactly what they deserved due to the fact that they are such a badly run club. Yes they might be a 'Big Club' but if you can only pick up 34 points in a season then you don't deserve to be in the Premier League anymore. To be fair it wouldn't have been unjust if both Hull and Sunderland had joined them and we had 5 clubs go down this season.

The media have some strange obession with Newcastle. The way they're perceived by the media you would think they were one of the biggest clubs in Britain if not Europe, but they haven't won a domestic trophy since the mid 50s. Newcastle are part of a group of clubs in the Premier League in what I would consider the second tier after the Big Four. This would include Villa, Spurs, Everton, and now potentially Man City. I would previously have included Leeds in this group, but we've all seen what's happened to them in recent years.

They all have big support and history, and are looking to break into the top four. The thing they all have in common is that with the money involved in the modern game none of these clubs should ever really find themselves fighting relegation or getting relegated if they are run well and run properly. It's no accident that both Everton and Villa have finished 5th and 6th for 2 seasons running. Everton are arguably the best run club in the Premiership.

For this reason I have no sympathy for Newcastle at all, maybe going down will be the best thing for them and they can start all over again, and perhaps look at changing the whole ethos and mentality of the club.

Compare Newcastle to Barcelona, who really are a true giant of the game, who also represent their local region. Their performance last night was amazing! They looked nervous for the first 10 minutes in which Man Utd looked like they were going to dictate the game, but following the first goal there was only one team in it.

Clearly Utd were below their best and some people have been harsh on them saying that they never turned up, but they did come up against the very very best in world football last night and there's nothing to be ashamed of in that. How often if ever do we see Utd struggle to get hold of the ball, and when they lose it go minutes without seeing it again? The speed, touch, and movement of Barcelona was superb to watch. The played the kind of football that reminds you of why we love the game so much.