Democracy and capitalism are right. Aren't they?

Ireland is in bail-out territory again, to the tune of £21billion. That's not small change, is it?

The UK has the highest deficit in European history.

Greece has collapsed economically, and will continue to need support.

Portugal is not far behind.

The whole economy of The West is falling apart. Each individual state, except America, could potentially fall. Maybe Europe, ultimately, will become the next fifty states of America. Europe founded modern America, so I suppose it would be the circle of life in motion.

Is this how capitalism works?

The largest, strongest entity eventually consumes everything else around it. Ultimately, we all become one.

What happened to national identity?

Of course national identity and nationalism are easily confused, and the latter is easily slated. I'm a nationalist. You're Hitler! Or not far off.

Of course, that's idiotic. I am quite capable of championing British interests without advocating mass slaughter of our ethnics.

But, if they are going so wrong, are western democracy and capitalism definitely the right models for the future?

Communism is a dirty word. Nationalism means Nazi. But are we not capable of finding our own alternative?

For the record, I would take a properly proportional government in which not only the immovable 'top two' have a say. I would take a proportional voting system. I would NOT take AV (that's another blog).

I would take the chance to genuinely make a difference.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Is it because they is black?

Gordon Taylor, head of the PFA, says that black managers need extra help to get jobs.

He has a point, to an extent. There are only two black managers currently in the entire league. Out of 92 clubs, this can't be healthy, can it?

It certainly does not reflect a proportional image of our society. Having said that.... How many women managers are there? How many gay managers are there? How many Buddhist managers are there? At what point do you stop socially stratifying a particular employment type?

Perhaps women, gays and Buddhists are bad examples in football (perhaps not), but what about asians?

In a nation with a large Pakistani, Indian and Bangadeshi contingent, where are they in our football? I cannot think of one significant Brit-Asian footballer, let alone a manager.

Surely that's racist, isn't it? Is it?

Maybe cultural differences play a part. After all, football is the game of us indigenous white Brit's fathers. Cricket is the game of our Asian population's fathers and, not by accident, they are better represented in that sport. It is not considered racist in the media that our cricket team has a higher proportion of Asian and (mainly South) African origin players than is proportionate for our country. Should white Brits be given 'extra help' to get in to our own cricket team? The very suggestion sets the political correctness alarm blaring.

Is it possible that football boards, cricket selectors, and any other sports decision-makers are not inherently racist? Is it possible that they do not discriminate on the basis of colour, class or creed. Is it possible, in fact, that they make their choices honestly, based on talent alone. Is it possible that the talent pool and the general populus might have differing diversities?

Not according to Gordon Taylor. Blacks are under-represented, so we must enforce a rule (that any black manager applying for a job must get an interview) which positively discriminates in their favour.

I'm sure some of you reading this might think I'm a racist. I'm not. That's the whole philosophy of this blog - I don't sit in a box and I will give whatever opinion I believe in, free of any given agenda.

So forgive me if I do not believe that this story represents equality in action. It is tokenism. It is political correctness gone mad. It is hypocrisy and farce.

At best it is misguided and misinformed.

Whatever it is, IT IS NOT EQUALITY.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

David Cameron exposed

Best players in their best positions in the best team....



Fabio: hasn't cracked the Lampard-Gerrard conundrum

That, to me, is what a football manager should strive to pick. Sounds obvious, doesn't it? But it often doesn't happen, especially with the England team.

Managers, and fans, are often drawn instead to focus on the first bit only: the best players.

So, a whole generation of England bosses have struggled with the Frank Lampard-Steven Gerrard conundrum. They are the two best midfielders in England, and have been for years. So they both have to play, don't they? Except that it has never quite worked, because together they fail the second and third principles: their best positions are the same, so they can't both play there, and playing one of them out of position does not give us our best team. The answer to the conundrum? Leave one of them on the bench.


 Then we come to the Darren Fletcher paradox. He is not one of Manchester United's headline players. He is, arguably, not one of their four best midfielders. Crucially though, the team tend to play better with him than without him. Why? Because he IS the best ball-winner they have. He may not catch the eye with glorious long passes and he does not score many goals, but he does the basics well. He hassles and harries the opposition when they have the ball. He never stops working and he very rarely gives away possession. In midfield, alongside their best play-maker Paul Scholes,Fletcher gives Manchester United their best partnership. He is a pivotal part of their best team, and he is crucial to their success.



The Darren Fletcher Paradox



This is a paradox which has beaten England managers. They cannot, of course, pick Fletcher. He is a bit too, um, Scottish. But there are options.

Currently, Scott Parker is our best ball-winner. He is better at that role than Steven Gerrard or Frank Lampard. That they can dovetail and 'share' the ball-winner role is a myth. It is a question of mentality: they measure their own performance by the goals they create and score, Parker measures his by the mark he leaves on the opposition.

Jack Wilshere is Fabio Capello's latest candidate to play in the deep-lying midfield role, but he is another whose mentality is, primarily, focused on attack. He is another world-class play-maker. He is potentially better than Lampard or Gerrard in that role, certainly more cultured than either of them, and less smash-and-grab.

Could Parker and Wilshere be our best central midfield pairing? Could we dream of leaving Gerrard and Lampard both on the bench? Would player-power ever allow it?

Parker: England's best ball-winner

If Capello were as strong-minded as he was built up to be when appointed England manager, he might entertain this sort of not really very radical thinking. Instead, he has tended to simply fall in line with the same misguided selection policy as other England managers before him. Pick the best players, the biggest names, the stars. Pick the side that The Sun could easily pick for you, without charging an exorbitant salary to do so.

Capello has not brought new thinking to England. As I have alluded to in previous posts, he doesn't even seem to care that much. After all, he is retiring next year anyway. You can almost forgive him for just going through the motions until then.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Jack Wilshere?

He didn't even cross my mind when I thought about how England might line up tomorrow. Then I read the papers, and apparently the team is being built around him. Well, one step at a time Fabio. We're not done with building the team around Wayne Rooney yet. Or Steven Gerrard, it Frank Lampard or even David Beckham.

If the team, built around Wilshere, fails, who do we build it around next?

An idea, radical I know: How about we establish a team ethic, and fit the players in to that, based on the best players playing in the best positions for for the best benefit of the team? How about we forget reputations and preconceptions and just get back to nation v nation, club v club?

What's stopping it?

YOU ARE!

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Dithering over 'Dafi, as governments duck responsibility

Increasingly more so, media coverage of the Libya intervention seems to be focusing more on who is in charge than what it is setting out to achieve.

The USA want to diminish their involvement, worried about upsetting the Arab nations with yet another war. Britain and France are keen to take part but, like a child near a swing-set, they each seem to be waiting for Daddy America's permission to ride.

Despite France's objections, control, it appears, will go to NATO. Not anyone's total obligation, then. Nice.

Diplomacy, I'm sure, can be a good thing at times. But in this case it just looks like everyone passing the buck.

If Gaddafi is as evil as we say he is, and if the fate of mankind rests, as we say it does, on deposing (and possibly killing) him, then why don't we, all us allied forces, just get on and do it. Leave the squabbling side-effects until afterwards. Get the job done.

Or is there no political currency in that?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Nice to see The Alternative View referenced on another website...

Bbc Emails Show Panic Over Countryfile Presenter Miriam Oreillys | Berita Sepak Bola Indonesia

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Purple Politics and the Blank Canvas: A Vision of Change

Since the birth of New Labour in the 90s, UK politics has become so neutral that you can barely tell the difference between a Labour policy and a Conservative one. The only thing you can be sure of is that the Opposition, whichever party may be in opposition, will always oppose. They will oppose policies which they themselves would have championed, had they been in power. In some cases they oppose policies they DID champion, before they were booted out of government. This is the nature of our far-too-narrow politics. And this nature must change.

Do I, the voter, prefer Red or Blue? How can I tell when the whole supposed spectrum appears Purple. Even with a splash of Yellow, our Government and the Opposition are still Purple to the core.

Central. Neutral. Insipid.

We have a Government which will stand until the next major economic downturn and then fall down in flames, only to rise once more, like a phoenix, but under another name.

Labour replace Conservatives, Conservatives replace Labour, and so on and so forth. They each preside over the same ups and the same downs, each blaming the other along the way. Well, two so similar characters are hardly likely to get along, are they?

This is the time for change.

Forget Purple. Let's take a blank, White canvas and start again. Forget party allegiance. What are the best policies for Britain?

Liberate yourself from your preconceptions. Don't think that politics just has to be how it is, and how it has been for a hundred years. A hundred years, in the vast expanse of our nation's history, is a mere blink of an eye.

Change will shape the future. You will shape the future.

Think of the blank canvas. Think of what future you would like to paint upon it, and speak up for that change.

Speak up for change. Make democracy work for you. Make it representative. Make it accessible to the people it is meant to represent.

Speak up for change. Rebuild Britain in your own image. Rebuild the nation through endeavour, growth and determination.

Don't sit idly by and let the leaders lead, just because they're the leaders. Tell them what you think. Make them work for you.

Speak up for change.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

"Lesson learnt" as Capello reinstates Terry as England captain

Fabio Capello confirmed yesterday that John Terry would once more be England captain, stating that the Chelsea defender has learnt his lesson and has been punished enough.

Does that mean that he's no longer the womanising cheat who divided the national squad's loyalties and forced one team-mate in to an early international retirement? No, he is still as reprehensible as ever.

Does it mean that Capello has learnt his lesson and changed his own mind? Maybe. Or maybe it is just the latest example of casual mismanagement in the England manager's rein, which is ever more so resembling precisely what the cynics say it is: a cushy little pre-retirement pay-day.

The Italian has certainly botched his handling of this matter, whichever way you look at it. He either should have stood by Terry and not sacked him in the first place, or he should have stayed true to his original decision. Having done neither, he should have extended Rio Ferdinand the courtesy of not debating the subject in the media before discussing it with him. Some matters should certainly be kept behind closed doors.

The revelation, skirted over, at least in the BBC coverage of story, that Ferdinand refused an invitation to meet with the gaffer on Wednesday night shows that the now former England skipper felt slighted and undermined by the highly public discussion over the previous few days. That it coincided with media reports over the sustainability of the injury-plagued centre-half's career as even a Manchester United player can't have helped.

So Ferdinand is put out. Steven Gerrard is probably a bit put out. John Terry was put out for a year but now he can be smug again. The overall harmony of the England camp, it seems, is a bit all over the place. It is almost as if Capello does not understand the nature of managing Englishmen in the full glare of the English public. But then, not being English and having never played or managed here, how could he? His Italian compatriots, you imagine, would not have made such a fuss of what was an entirely non-football manner.

It is another source of the English football team's disharmony that he is even in the job at all. Post Sven Goran-Eriksson it was decided an Englishman was needed, so we got Steve McClaren. When he was no longer deemed fit, the FA once again lost faith in its indigenous managerial candidates: Sam Allardyce's face didn't fit; neither he nor Harry Redknapp was proven at the very top; who else was there?

In desperation the FA reached out for Capello, who was as proven as any manager in the game. Well, he was at club level. In international management, he was no more experienced than Allardyce or Redknapp. But, truth be told, no-one going in to the England job can really be qualified by experience. The job is unique: a narrow pool of talent; a domestic league over-ridden with foreign talent; no players with experience of any league other than our blood and thunder Premier League. Too many players of the same quintessentially English mould; too few of any other.

And now the FA have stated, presumably for some of the reasons above, and also just because people think it's the right thing to do, that the next boss should be English. Like Capello's hard and soft handling of John Terry, it seems that the FA is hot-stepping between moral footings. If it was not the right thing to do before, then why is it now?

Regardless, Capello is retiring from the post next year. Who will replace him?

If only a perfect candidate were to arise. Someone with all the relevant experience: success at home, abroad and in Europe. Intimate knowledge of the England set-up and the pressures associated with it.

Steve McClaren anyone?

The FA did not-so-long ago state that they would consider re-appointing McClaren, who at the time was gaining wide repute for his title-winning success at Dutch side FC Twente. He would never be accepted back though, would he? In this age of trial-by-media he would have the noose around his neck before he even had chance to unfurl his brolly.

So who then? There is no perfect candidate, and the best coaches and the best tacticians, even the much-trumpeted Fabio Capello, have failed. So who?

A patriot. A pragmatist. A man who demands respect not for his world renown or for his past successes, but for his passion. Someone who would have either told Terry to shove it or who would have backed him unequivocally. Someone who may not be the best and brightest, but who is honest and true. Someone young, English and driven, who could feasibly lead the team for a generation. Someone we, players and fans alike, can all get behind without any debate or doubt.

My man may also be the FA's man. After all, he is already on the inside. He is Stuart Pearce. Psycho. Could he be the next England manager?

I'm male. I'm white. I'm not yet 30. What happens if I'm the one who is discriminated against?

Let's discuss a hypothetical scenario: I feel that I'm discriminated against at work.

It's not on account of my race, gender, age, religious beliefs or sexuality - none of which could be considered marginal.

I have read the employee handbook, and I have referred the situation to Unite, the union. They both refer to employment law, which prohibits discrimination - but only on specified grounds, such as those listed above.

The truth is, I don't know exactly why I am discriminated against. I just feel, sometimes, that my face doesn't fit. This is not covered in law.

Bullying at work is covered by law, although Unite recognise that, as a form of discrimination, bullying is hard to define and even harder to confront.

Alarmingly I realise that some of the bullying behaviours identified on Unite's website describe ME. Am I a bully? I certainly don't mean to be, but I can be bloody sarcastic sometimes.

I read on, and the website tells me that bullying behaviour is often a reaction to being bullied - of course, this is playground stuff, and it is silly. No one bullies me.

But then I read about institutionalized bullying. Qualified by effect rather than intention, this may make its victims feel hopeless, depressed or worthless. It may involve passing people over for promotion, even if they are better qualified or more experienced. It may involve favouritism towards others, or inequal treatment (better pay, better opportunities, more recognition for the ones whose faces do fit). Institutionalised bullying may occur when you are asked to perform to a higher level than those around you, without the benefits or status which should accompany such responsibility. You may find that you have to pick up the slack for others, including those above you, for little or no extra reward. You may find yourself kept in the dark about your own future - especially where short-term secondments and departmental re-organisations are concerned. You have proven you can do the job, will you be rewarded? There may be little opportunity for progression in your role, particularly if those above you seem to be job-for-lifers. You may feel that you can't complain about these things or that, if you do, your words fall on deaf ears. Worse still, if you speak up you may be resented, or even further victimised, as a result.

This is institutionalised bullying. It is hurtful, and cruel, and it can make your working life a misery. And, looking around, I see others like me who must feel the same - how do they deal with it? Happy pills? Or do they become, eventually, so jaded and worn down by it that they just don't care.

Of course, this is hypothetical - if it were true I wouldn't write about it. I'd be too scared of the consequences.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

"We have put down the placards, and picked up the reins of power"

That was Nick Clegg's rallying call to his Liberal Democrat party yesterday, reported by the BBC here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12720315

It was an evocative choice of words as public opinion of the Lib Dems continues to angrily plummett.

They have gone back on their manifesto promises on cuts and tuition fees. They have tried to shift focus on to electoral reform - though even that has come with concessions to their Tory masters.

Barely a word is uttered now about the Proportional Representation that they actually favour. Instead we have a referendum on the Alternative Vote system - this is far from the same thing, and it is not what the Lib Dems really believe in.

I refer you to Chris Huhne MP, who surmises this better than I can:

http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Liberal_Democrats_will_fight_for_proportional_representation_says_Huhne&pPK=700bb819-e9c5-443f-9d77-8612c33044fa

But who cares what they believe in. They have "put down" their beliefs and "picked up" their role in the Coalition Government.

That, it seems, is Nick Clegg's real message to his party: forget your principles, it's all about power.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Life in the words of....

"
This is my book, and this is how it reads
A documentary that nobody believes

Ginger Elvis Presley looked a fraction sad
Roaming the whole town from bin to bin
But living on the street isn't all that bad
Where no-one seems to that he's the King

Half an hour is seven hours
A year could be a decade, spent alone

You had a little time and you had a little fun
Didn't you?

You cheapened and you nastied every woman in this land
But you're so handy

Like pink lipstick on a 5 year old girl
It makes you think that it's a plastic world...
A plastic world and we're all plastic too
Just a couple of different faces in a dead man's queue

I want my sundrenched, windswept Ingrid Bergman kiss
And not in the next life
I want it in this

But if... If you choose
That we must always lose
Well then I'll sail this ship alone
Between the sharks and the treasure
I'll sail this ship alone
Through the pain and the pleasure

Your name is always mentioned in the jokes and cracks
Your Coach & Horses and your Woolpacks

They have the vocal chords of elephants
And the characters of mice

Good as gold, stupid as mud
They carry on regardless

I wrote this song for you

Let love speak up itself....
Let it rise up in the morning and take us for a walk
And let it do the talking
When we're too tired to talk

We are eachother

And... Now my face looks like a map of the town
And my teeth are either yellow or they're brown
But you'll never hear the crack of a frown when you are here
You'll never hear the crack of a frown
"
All quoted, in bits and pieces, from Paul Heaton and Dave Rotheray (the Beautiful South). The OST of my life! Angry / nostalgic montage. Lol.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Sailing this ship alone

So that's it. It's over. My ex-girlfriend has told me that she no longer wants to keep in touch.

It shouldn't have come as a surprise, but it did.

We haven't seen eachother since before Christmas. We broke up last summer. We don't talk on the phone. We are not friends on Facebook.

I shouldn't miss her, as a friend, but I will.

I will miss little things. Texts asking how I am doing. Someone to text when I am down, or angry. Knowing that someone out there cares. Little things are important, sometimes.

I should be over missing her as a girlfriend and, in many ways, I am. I am still notalgic though, for the good times we had. We both know that the bad ones outweighed them. Still, we had something special and I choose to remember that first.

I choose to remember the first date. I choose to remember the first kiss. I choose to remember the Sea-life Centre. I hope she remembers that too.

The bad stuff is personal and, I think, it can stay that way. Let's both forget it.

I'll refer to the soundtrack of my life here - the Beautiful South back catalogue - and i'll say that, if you want to know how I feel, listen to I'll Sail This Ship Alone. If ever any song summed up any man's feelings at any time, this is it for me, now.

You might listen to it and think it is hopelessly depressive. It's not. The song is about love and loss, yes. But it is also about dealing with it, and moving on. Love and loss is easier because, normally, there is no element of choice. It's the moving on that's hard.

Don't worry though. I will.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Disgrace!

It's a disgrace! That's the resounding sentiment of Tweeters, Facebookers and general disgruntled Englanders.

The reality? England have lost. England have lost to Bangladesh. England could go out of the World Cup.

Of course, England have had a mammoth winter of touring. England have won The Ashes on Australian soil for the first time in a billion years. England have made great strides under Andy Flower.

None of this matters. They lost to Bangladesh. Disgrace!

Ok. It's sensationalist. It's unfair. It's lacking in context, balance and grace. But, nevertheless, it is the overriding public opinion. It is also, to an extent, what makes sport interesting. Or, at least, what makes it newsworthy. But only to an extent.

Sport, really, should be about excellence and competitiveness: two traits which England seem currently to be lacking.

Why? The gruelling touring schedule. An obscene number of one day games. An unrelenting hunger for more and more cricket - not from the players, but from the consumers.

For sport, like any other commercial asset, is now an item of consumption. No wonder the players are jaded.

Kevin Pietersen went home a few days ago. Andy Flower, through diplomatic lips, vented his dissatisfaction at this (read Mike Atherton's piece in The Times).

But Pietersen probably just doesn't care that much. He's both over-worked and over-paid - a mind-boggling combination, for us mere mortals. But consider this: the press build you up as a star, you earn a fortune; you are dragged around the world to play in seemingly infinite and often meaningless games, and every stroke of your bat, and every word you utter, is under the most extreme scrutiny.

Wouldn't you ever feel like just walking away?

Of course that's wrong. Millions of honest Englanders would kill for KP's life. He should honour the badge. But, if you treat people like commodities, they will often start to behave accordingly.

If sport could go back, which it can't, perhaps we could see real men, real passion and real competition once more.

That won't happen, but there are compensations: the technical ability of players, driven by intensified training and higher prizes, is higher than ever before; the television coverage, driven by technology and consumerism, is more interactive and illuminating; the press coverage is, it pains me to admit, more interesting.

But the highlights of my cricketing spectatorship have been the Darren Goughs and the Freddie Flintoffs. The flawed everymans who give a shit. Though their bodies were broken by the intensity of consumer-sport's demanding schedules, their spirits were never quelled.

That's what sport should really be about but, sadly, it is now akin to mere old-fashioned sentimentalism. The Brave New World of sport often has too little time for such trifles.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Hague blunder leaves Cameron red-faced

"How would you welcome new neighbours to your street?" asked the Shadow Home Secretary, Douglas Alexander. "Would you ring their doorbell, or climb over the back garden fence?"

That about sums up the mess William Hague has made of his "diplomatic mission" to Libya. It started with errors: no communication with the rebel leaders; poor military advice. It ended with a "serious misunderstanding" which could have cost British lives.

Under the cross-examination of his fellow MPs, Hague more closely resembled a child sulking on the naughty step than one of the UK's most senior politicians. Head bowed, he had little defence as MPs took turns to dissect the Foreign Secretary's "serial bungling".

"Ill-conceived, poorly planned and embarrassingly executed," former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell surmised.

It is the latest in a series of headaches for Prime Minister David Cameron, who is already on the back-foot over Prince Andrew's role as UK Trade Envoy, after revelations about his links to a convicted sex offender.

It is not the first time Hague has caused embarrassment for the Conservatives. During his spell as Party Leader he famously claimed to have drunk 14 pints a night in his youth - a comment which drew ridicule, rather than the street cred he may have hoped for.

Nevertheless, Cameron backed Hague by appointing him to one of the most senior positions in the Coalition Cabinet. At such a crucial point in the Libyan crisis, he might have expected a better return on that show of faith.

Watch Hague's explanation of events on the BBC Website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9417000/9417033.stm

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5