Yes, he is black. So what?

In the Snooker World Championships this week, Rory McLeod played John Higgins. He was quite comfortably beaten. He missed too many shots that, at that level, are considered gimmes. He tried hard and upset a few people with his slow, attritional style. None of this is particularly remarkable, but what is remarkable is that Rory McLeod is snooker's only black professional, and no-one seems to mentioning that fact.

Hold on..... this is not another pro-equality, minority empowering blog. This is The Alternative View. So why is this issue so remarkable?

I don't recall McLeod's colour being mentioned at all during the BBC match commentary, their coverage or the match reports on their website. The Guardian's match report is the same. Apart from, ironically, me, no-one seems to have mentioned it at all. And why should they?

I recall a blog post on the Pink Stinks website about a Matthew Syed article published in the Times. Syed had interviewed Fran Halsall, the swimmer, and written a massively favourable article about her. He did make one mistake though - he opened the piece by commenting on her appearance. That small flaw set the alarm bells ringing at Pink Stinks HQ, and prompted the following response:

http://pinkstinks.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/dressed-for-success-what/

You might notice my counter-arguments tacked on the end of their blog. If you think I have held a grudge over this for two years, I really haven't. I like the Pink Stinks blogs and I think their "campaign for real role-models" is a great initiative which the authors, Emma and Abi, are clearly very passionate about. In fact, I have to actually credit Emma for her suggestion that I set up my own blog, which is where, um, this all came from!

For me the counter-argument to most pro-equality causes has always been that they tend to put people in boxes, and putting people in boxes is actually more divisive than it is helpful. In the Halsall / Syed scenario, Halsall is in the oppressed box and Syed is the oppressor. But, actually, Fran Halsall has gotten to where she is through hard work and determination and she is a good-looking girl. No-one, including Matthew Syed, would argue otherwise. She probably didn't feel oppressed or objectified, and he probably didn't intend for her to.

Syed has also gotten to where he is through hard work and determination, and not just with his award-winning journalism. He was an olympic table-tennis player. He must understand the effort that Halsall has gone through, but does that mean he can't acknowledge that she is a woman? If you follow the link (in the Pink Stinks blog) and read his article, you will actually find that he only briefly comments on her looks at the start, in the context of the glamorous photo shoot she is attending, and then swiftly moves on to itemise and laud her achievements and her character. It is hardly straight out of Nuts magazine, is it?

It is not enough to say that women are objectified or marginalised in sport. It is not enough to say that black people are under-represented in snooker. Without context these arguments are unsubstantiated. There cannot be a quota system for sporting achievement or media coverage, and if there was one, it would not represent equality. When a sportsperson of any colour, gender, creed, age or class can perform at the highest level, win or lose, and have no-one qualify their judgement based on anything but the contest at hand, then that will truly constitute equal treatment.

The same should be said of journalists and any other professional. Do not judge what I am, judge what I do. Judge the articles he writes, the snooker he plays, the speed she swims. Judge it on merit and relate to it accordingly. If you are bad at what you do, you can always work harder at it. You can never change who you are.

Matthew Syed's article is fair, balanced, well-written and complimentary. If you forget that he is a man, what fault can you find with it? It doesn't matter that Syed is a man. It doesn't matter that he is half-Pakistani, and therefore eligible for minority perspective himself. As a writer, he should only be judged on what he writes, not on some presumed agenda which he may or may not have.

People are different. The human population is multi-faceted and diverse, but there are trends amongst groupings. For example, West Indian men tend to be more powerfully-built than white British men, which can make them more suited to sprinting, but less suited to distance running than those from certain parts of Africa. But nature - in so much as our understanding of genetic and geographical influences allows - doesn't have all the answers. Culture is important too. I'll use my favourite example here again - Brits of Asian descent are well represented in cricket, but not in football. Whether for natural or cultural reasons, or both, those of West Indian heritage, like McLeod, are certainly better represented in athletics than they are in snooker. There is nothing wrong with this, so long as it is organic. There is another factor too: individuality.Rory McLeod is unique. But then so are John Higgins, Fran Halsall and Matthew Syed, and so are you and I.

So, for anyone with no agenda, other than trying to understand and occasionally pass sensible comment on the world around us, let's hope that some day everyone can simply be treated how Rory McLeod has been treated this week - just like anyone else.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, yes...

The pre-referendum pro- and anti- Alternative Vote campaigns are rapidly approaching full swing.

'Yes' is supported by Eddie Izzard and Stephen Fry, 'no' by Peter Stringfellow and Tony Hadley. Who gives a ****?

Stringfellow says that he understands the current system, and he believes it is "the right way", Izzard says AV will give "power to the people".

You have to wonder whether they even understand the proposals about which they are spewing out slogans. Their quotes suggest not.

If you are politically aware, this might not be the blog for you. But if, like many, you know little about this referendum, other than what Izzard and co think, read on. Compare their views to the facts and, I implore you, vote on the facts, not on the say-so of the celebrity backers:

1) Our existing 'First Past the Post' system and AV are BOTH majoritarion voting systems. In other words, they put power in the hands of the winners; the losers (and those who voted for them) take a backseat with no say in policy-making. This means more than 50% of the voters might not be represented at all by the elected member (under FPTP), or at all by their first choice (under AV).

2) Under either system each separate electorate (constituency) only has one member elected - anyone who didn't want that electee is unrepresented in government.

3) The Liberal Democrats, who now champion AV, did NOT want it before last year's election. They wanted the Single Transferable Vote.

4) STV is a version of Proportional Representation which elects multi-member constituencies via a quota system - in other words if you get a set portion of the vote you get a seat. The majority of voters actually get some representation in the resultant membership.

5) There are other versions of Proportional Representation, for example: The Regional Party List system, whereby you actually just vote for your preferred party, not candidate, and they get the proportion of seats for your area accordingly, given to party members in the order of the published order of preference.

6) The Proportional systems are not outlandish, far-fetched or extremist-friendly (the latter being a common prejudice held over, inaccurately, from inter-war German politics).

7) In fact, in European Parliament elections FPTP and AV are BOTH banned. Neither is deemed fair enough.

8) The UK use the Regional Party List system for European elections. Under this system, for example, the East of England has 7 MEPs (3 Tory, 2 UKIP, 1 Labour, 1 Lib Dem) as per the votes cast. These 7 members all represent the whole area, ie. No-one is specifically aligned to and area such as Norwich North - they all represent Norwich North, and all its local neighbours.

9) David Cameron and the Tories are shit-scared of AV, because it might slightly erode their political strength. A fully PR system could actually prevent them from ever getting majority rule again (bearing in mind it took Gordon Brown's limping Labour for them to even get a minority victory...)

10) Because the Tories infiltrated Lib Dem ideology, and warped it to their own ends, we now have a referendum on AV. No-one wanted this in the first place, but it's all we can have for now.

So, that's the facts. There are only two options, because abstaining suggests we don't care either way, rather than caring too much. So what's it to be people? You tell me: Yes or No?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Clegg's unwitting self-parodies could ruin the Lib Dems for good

The moment Nick Clegg entered in to a coalition with the Conservative Party, he must have known he was undermining his own party, mustn't he?

Maybe not. The most concerning element of Cleggy's activities is that he seems almost blissfully unaware of the self-parody he and his party are becoming.

Clegg has most recently been exposed by the fast-track job controversy: he was so busy championing a clamp-down on such elitism that he apparently forgot that he had not only benefited personally as a young up-and-comer but also exploited the same system in the course of his own political career.

So, Nick Clegg will fight for a political cause he does not believe in to enhance his own repute? This is not news.

He has long-since assumed the role of principle mascot for AV, despite having dismissed the proposed-system as "a miserable little compromise" before the election.

The Lib Dem party stance, then, was that truly Proportional Representation was the aim. So what has changed, other than the offer of a little power in exchange for their principles?

I can't help but feel cheated by the 'bright new hope' that Clegg had promised to be. At least I didn't vote for him. Of course, under our current system, I couldn't have done. Nor could I have done so under AV. My vote would have been disregarded in either, and Chloe Smith would still be my Tory MP.

Clegg is playing the politics game with big boys now, and he seems to be enjoying the attention, and the opportunity to dabble with quirky little nuances such as spin and flat-out dishonesty, rather like a child with a new set of toys. Similarly child-like is his apparent lack of concern for those around him, including his party and their loyal followers.

He may be enjoying playing Deputy Prime Minister, a title he has not earned, but he is wrong to neglect the effect of his u-turns and faux pas.

To perform on request is to be little more than a clown, and he is in danger of turning the Liberal Democrat party in to a circus, with David Cameron as guest ring-master. The more principled Liberals will not stand for this, and nor will their voters.

Mr Clegg, I feel, needs to take a long hard look at himself, and make some decisions. If he leaves it too long, those decisions will no longer be his to make.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Daniel Levy agrees with me! Redknapp, shock-horror, does not...

Tottenham 'streamlining' may lead to Gareth Bale's departure - Est1892

Oh, look! As featured in today's Guardian, Spurs' interim financial statement shows they are over-dependant on their soon to be a distant memory Champions League revenue. If only someone could have predicted this bombshell, huh?

Not that I'm smug, of course. No, I feel sorry for the 'Arryphiles who thought he was their knight in shining armour.

I've been through similar myself, as a Boro fan. We achieved unprecedented glory (by our meagre standards) in the Carling and UEFA cups, and the club is still buggered now. Steve Gibson is an outstanding businessman, but that episode proves that even the savvy can stumble where football and glory are concerned.

In the last ten years we have had McClaren (opportunist), Southgate (altruist), Strachan (opportunist) and now Mowbray (altruist) so I can spot the difference a mile off, and I can see how they interact differently with the fans and chairman. One model is patter and promises, the other is hard work and no excuses. You work out which one 'Arry is, if you haven't already.

Anyway, back to Spurs. Compare and contrast these quotes:
Levy: "The squad has become unwieldy" , "we are operating with one of the largest squads in the league" , "this has eased our passage in to the Champions League, but it must be streamlined".

'Arry (in response to possible Bale sale): "But... Blub... I'm trying to build a team... Sob... It's not fair!"

Ok, I may have paraphrased a little, but you get my point. Don't you? Go on, there's no shame in admitting you are wrong. After all, your man Levy has spelled it out for you anyway. You were right about one thing - he clearly is no Peter Storrie and he will rein in the funds before it's too late.

I have a question for you, Spurs fans, as I am so ill-researched and pathetic that I clearly can't work this one out: 'ow long will 'Arry 'ang around once the "ambition" (ie. funds) 'as dried up?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Published with Blogger-droid

Listen up and listen hard: I'm sorry.

Yes. I hold up my hands and apologise to those what my poor spelling, poor grammar and poor research has offended.

You heard. And you're right of course. I don't even know how to use a spell-checker. Or, at least, I don't when I'm in a park or a pub or, like now, on a bus, blogging away on a touch-screen keypad in the palm of my hand.

In fact, it really rather hard to proof-read or even self-check-as-you-go in the centimetre-high window of text I have available. So sorry if I occasionally make mistakes.

If I say that 'Arry Redknapp represent all that is bad in the game I am wrong. He represents all that is wrong in the game. I would have italicised the word represents to highlight my point, but I can't. Sorry.

It's a trade-off we mobile-bloggers make: the luxury of spell-checks and ease of review for the convenience of blogging on the go. I mostly write on lunch-breaks or on the way to work, or else out somewhere else. I couldn't find the time to do it otherwise. So sorry if they are not always meticulously paragraphed, punctuated and spelt.

Throughout the history of language, new technologies have driven its gradual evolution in to what we have today. Breaking news: it is still evolving and it always will. The internet and mobile communications are the biggest drivers in this current phase of that evolution. This is not an excuse, its fact.

So, before you criticise, do your research. Or at least notice the footer on my posts: "Published with Blogger-droid."

In the meantime I've dropped a couple of deliberate errors in to this one. Enjoy pointing them out if that's what turns you on.

Thanks. And sorry again.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

'Arry ain't so 'appy now....

Real Madrid 4-0 Tottenham Hotspur. It is a score-line which makes me smile.

Don't get me wrong. Where possible, I will support English clubs in Europe. However, I can't quite bring myself to support Harry Redknapp who, in my opinion, is the least principled man in football management - and there is no shortage of contenders for that crown.

Why am I so against someone who is so widely popular? Why do I not subscribe to the view that he is the best English coach in the game: a great motivator and tactician who is nailed on to be the next England manager?

I believe there are two distinct ends to the football manager range of principles. The far-left is altruism, whereby a manager runs a club the right way, within its means, for the long-term good of the club and for the good of football itself. The far-right is opportunism, whereby a manager runs a club for short-term success, with little or no thought of the future of the club or the game, and seeks to enhance his own reputation by doing so.

An example of the altruism model is, perhaps, Dario Gradi at Crewe. He has spent a career working away with little glory (although some much-justified repute) with very little means, producing good young talents and selling them on. Sustaining the club at its natural level, never demanding more 'ambition' (ie. funds) from the board to inflate the status of the club to unsustainable heights.

Arsene Wenger is on that side of the spectrum too, although you could argue that his altruism is fueled by arrogance and his own ego - perhaps his dependence on youth is not so much about the future of the game as it is about him trying to prove he can win with kids. It is difficult to explain his stubborness otherwise, when he actually could stand to be more expansive in the transfer market without endangering the club's future. Either way, it does show that altruism is, perhaps, an impossible ideal - the principled can't always overcome the unscrupulous. Their ill-gotten advantages are too great.

Redknapp is at the other end. He represent greed, short-term gain and negligence. This was proven in his movement on the south coast before he ever became the legend that he now is at Spurs. His managerial stock was relatively low when he first joined Portsmouth (he would not have taken the job otherwise), and they enjoyed a little success together which raised his profile. An altruist would have been pleased by that, and would have seen the platform for a long-term relationship. Not Harry: he saw an opportunity. When Southampton dangled a bigger carrot - they had new-found ambition (ie. funds) and they needed a spearhead for that. So Harry went. But he found that the grass wasn't greener. The ambition (ie. funds) wasn't really there at all, and how could Harry ever succeed without a transfer warchest?

Portsmouth, though perhaps feeling slighted by Harry's departure, decided to actually follow his ethos. We must spend big to revive the club, they thought, almost as if Harry himself was having a word in their shell. Perhaps he was, because lo and behold, he was suddenly back there, with the much lusted-after warchest and an opportunity at a club with ambition (ie. funds). Chairmen are vulnerable to promises of glory, and they yearn like the fans do for immediate success. Long-term business plans can get forgotten in the excitement.

Now let me anticipate a defence of Harry here: most of his signings at Pompey were bargains. Sol Campbell was free. Lauren was free. Kanu was free. And so on. The fact is that these players were nothing of the sort - Pompey may not have paid transfer fees for them, but with signing-on fees, agent fees and top-level International player wages they were anything but free. And Harry was bringing them in en masse.

The result? Pompey won the FA Cup. Harry became revered as the greatest living English manager. And the club nearly went bust.

Did Harry hang around as the club was sinking? No. He jumped ship to Spurs. With his personal stock having risen as sharply as Pompey's had fallen, Harry was in prime position to get a prestige job - and Harry and Spurs were a perfect marriage of convenience. The club was languishing at the foot of the table under Juande Ramos, desperate for someone to pull them up from that false position. All Harry needed to prise him away from his evidently-not-particularly-beloved Pompey was proof of ambiton (ie. funds) from the Spurs board. Yes Harry, we will give you money to spend. Sold.

So now Harry has taken Spurs to the Champions League and his stock is through the roof. He is nailed on to be the next England manager according to the press, the fans and, most probably, the FA. He is the greatest living English manager, or at least the greatest English opportunist.

Then, in one fell swoop, reality hits home. That stock of his was so high, would the good times never end? Well they have just ended. They are almost certainly out of the Champions League and, five points off fourth, they are unlikely to qualify for it again for next season. Can a wage bill boasting Rafael Van Der Vaart and co (bargain at £10m if you ignore the signing-on fee, agent fees and wages) be sustained on the relatively meagre income of a UEFA Cup side?

It's not really Harry's fault though. As he pointed out in January, the team were lacking in firepower. Daniel Levy, the chairman, wouldn't let him buy a striker. Poor Harry made sure he blubbed about that on transfer deadline day. God help him having to make do with Van Der Vaart, Peter Crouch, Roman Pavlyuchenko and Jermain Defoe, while Robbie Keane and Giovanni Dos Santos are apparently not required. What can you do if you can't buy Harry? Try working with what you have got. Try developing your younger talent.

Or belittle them. Tell Darren Bent your Missus is a better finisher, and flog him to someone else who can make an England number 9 out of him. Farm out Jamie O'Hara on loan and sign Niko Kranjcar and Steven Pienaar instead. After all, why have a young, talented home-grown, squad player when you can have two imported high-earners for the same position instead? Do the same with Ben Alnwick - sign Stipe Pletikosa and Carlo Cudicini. And Kyle Walker - sign Sebastian Bassong and Younes Kaboul.

That's the way Harry, fill up your 25 and then some. Do it with big-name high-earners. Give yourself every chance of glory. As England boss in waiting, you'll only be there until 2012 anyway, and then someone else can clean up your mess, sell off your stars and make the club viable, and probably far less successful, once more.

The problem is, what will you do when your players aren't good enough for England. The FA can't give you funds to spend, and the ambition of a nation will rest on your shoulders. Good luck with that.... although I'm sure the multi-million pound pay-off when you inevitably fail will offer you some consolation.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

I will vote 'Yes' on AV. Here's why...

To those who have read my more politically-charged blogs, and to those of you with whom I have casually discussed my distaste for the Alternative Vote, this might surprise you. In May, I will vote 'Yes'.

It's not because I believe AV is a fair, proportional system. I know that AV is only marginally less majoritarian than first past the post.

It's not in support of Nick Clegg. The Lib Dems have lost so much credibility under him that I would certainly rather knock him down than build him up.

It's not because I believe electoral reform is necessary. I do, but I don't consider AV a full reform. Nor, for that matter, does Mr Clegg. He who now champions AV once called it a "miserable little compromise".

So why will I vote 'Yes', when I fundamentally disagree with the value of the proposed system, the principles of those campaigning for it and the supposed impact it will have?

I will vote 'Yes' because a 'No' vote could be a chance missed. 'Yes' is a chance to damage David Cameron and the Tories, and to impose on them something they don't want.

It is not a good system and it won't get rid of Tory or Labour safe seats. I believe that larger, multi-member constituences with representation proportional according to the votes cast is a fairer way, and one that should be campaigned for in future.

I believe the UK needs to pass through the smokescreen of AV and in to the full fire of truly proportional voting to burn down the entrenched failure of UK politics.

Unfortunately, Clegg and Cameron have 'compromised' that there will be no box with my last two paragraphs attached, so I can't vote for that.

The choice is simple: Vote for AV or vote for first past the post, or abstain in silent protest. The first two may both be wrong, but the third will invariably fall on deaf ears.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Inspired and depressed in equal measure

Is it possible for something to be at once inspirational and utterly depressing?

I have just seen Paul Heaton perform at the Norwich Art Centre. It was a good gig: Heaton was in fine form, performing new and old material and bantering like a stand up comic in between songs.

The new material is largely bombastic up-tempo fare, more reminiscent of his later Beautiful South records than his early South and Housematins period. Even if the beat reflects a mellowing of mood, the lyrics are sharper than ever.

Acid Country, the title track of the new album, eviscerates the socio-political culture of the UK and leaves the anti-establishment slogan "Fight a war on greed, not poverty", ringing in your ears.

Welcome to the South critiques the north-south divide, painting a picture of "mealy mouthed", crass southerners in what is effectively a cautionary tale to northern folk: stay where you are!

Perhaps it is Heaton's own fault then that he is not more commercially successful: writing lyrics which slag off the buying public certainly can't help.

This is inspirational, in its way. Heaton has rejected conformity throughout his career, instead remaining true to his principles. It is inspirational and it is admirable.

It is though, I think, also depressing. It is depressing because of the result. Here is Paul Heaton, middle-aged, talented, unfashionably northern in both geography and attitude. Hull is scarcely regarded as a cultural hotbed.

Heaton is an easy idol for someone like me - we have a lot in common, and his lyrics have always struck nerves with me. I could aspire to be like him, not musically of course, but in my chosen field, whatever that may be.

But then what? What would my equivalent of playing in front of a couple of hundred fans in the Norwich Art Centre be? What would his 2010 Pedals and Pumps tour of the pub circuit be in my life?

Heaton himself is evidently bitter about his somewhat fallen stock. "Have any of you actually bought the album?" he asked the crowd, before going on to thank them for their support: "I get none from the radio, TV or the press," he pointed out.

He was being honest, as ever, but again not courting popularity in doing so. That's another thing we have in common then.

I mentioned that he is talented. I knew that much beforehand. His songwriting is unique and, in my opinion, he is a genius for that alone. What I hadn't realised was how good a singer he is.

If you ever get the chance to see Heaton live, go. His acapella-harmonied performance of the Housemartins classic Caravan of Love was mesmeric. The strength of his voice is astonishing.

While jumped up X Factor nobodies are performing recycled, commercialised pop crap on the world stage, Paul Heaton is doing pubs. Yeah, that is depressing - there's no 'think' about it.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Dan D RIP!

Genuine bit of graffiti on the wall on my route to work! Should I be worried?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Good point, well made

EUobserver / Women quotas are 'demeaning', says Latvian ex-president