Saturday 26 December 2009

A Christmas cracker

Well, merry Christmas everybody. After the long preamble and the trials and tribulations of buying the Christmas presents, wrapping them, putting up decorations and filling up on turkey and all the trimmings and consuming copious amounts of wine, Christmas was gone in a flash. Yet again, all those hopes and dreams of unwrapping a magical present only to discover the usual array of socks and boxer shorts again. I dare say the turf accountants of this fair isle will be suitably non-plussed too given that they will have to pay out on a white Christmas after snow fell in Glasgow and parts of Northern England on St Nick's Day.

I hope Santa was kind to you this year and that your Christmas experience was a good one. But as well as Christmas, there have been some other things going on this crazy spinning globe we inhabit. So I'm going to recline in my comfy chair and discuss some of these issues while scoffing some turkey sandwiches and knocking back a vino or two. Here goes.

My take on...

The pre-Christmas cold snap
Well if there is a man of divinity upstairs in control of the weather, he appears to lack a sense of timing. While the romantics were keeping their fingers crossed that they could wake up to a classic Christmas card scene on Christmas morning, in the event the blanket of snow arrived a week early. I suppose the timing was at least spot on in the eyes of schoolchildren, given that the blizzard-esque conditions arriving when they did enabled them to start their Christmas holidays a day ahead of schedule and instead of heading to school for double Maths and possibly The Santa Clause DVD as a reward for good behaviour in the General Studies class, they instead could just retreat to the garden for triple snowball fighting.

Snow does appear to be a strange phenomenon for the majority of people in this country, probably because being a temperate country, we are not used to it visiting these shores very often. This is reflected in many people's attitude towards the white stuff which could be best described as a love-hate relationship. People love the idea of snow falling and the romantic image of opening the curtains to a white carpet where the night before there had been driveway and pavement. They may also love the thought of being snowed in for a day so that it prevents a day's travel to work. But once the snow turns to ice and makes navigating the pavements a challenge even to Torvill and Dean, people are less enamoured by this invasion from winter's forces of nature.

It is true also that because extreme winter weather conditions are not a regular occurrence in the United Kingdom that preparation for such conditions is not as ingrained in the national psyche as it would be in countries more accustomed to snowfall. This is worth remembering when assessing the fallout from this most recent flurry of snow and the disruption it caused, particularly in view of the criticism that local authorities received over the lack of speed with which they responded to the situation.

There is no question that local authorities were reactive to the inclement weather rather than proactive. The adverse weather conditions had been forecast several days beforehand, although it is probably fair to conclude that the amount of snow that fell in a short space of time was greater than had been anticipated. Nonetheless, the cold snap had been widely predicted beforehand and so it would not have been unreasonable to have expected there to have been some measures in place whereby the gritting supplies were on standby. The argument that you cannot plan in advance on the strength of a weather forecast no longer holds the weight that it would previously have done given that the long range forecasting technology available now has improved the accuracy of forecasting.

All this said, there was only so much that could be done. In February, you may recall that there was discussion about the heavy snowfall that caused disruption at that time and one of the key points I raised back then was that the difficulty in reacting quickly to the situation was because much of the snow fell at the weekend when there were not adequate staff around to grit roads and pavements or to clear snow from railway and tram lines. This time around, the snow fell largely on Thursday and Friday, but some areas were at their most treacherous at the weekend when the snow had thawed out and roads and pavements had become pathways of sheet ice as it is known in Newcastle, or sub-standard ice as it is known elsewhere. This meant that addressing the problem at this point was more difficult because of the lack of manpower available and was further exacerbated by the disruption to the transport network, preventing workers from getting to the scene.

There are those that would suggest that local authorities keep a war chest of suitable machinery to use in the event of snow, much like is used in Russia or some Scandinavian countries. Such a move would be impractical though given that this would be an expensive exercise to deal with a weather pattern that is relatively rare in the United Kingdom. While it is true that this is the second time that there has been significant snowfall during 2009, it is also worth remembering that prior to this year, the last time there was anything that could be described as a blizzard in the south of England without sounding very melodramatic would have been some eighteen years ago. Asking local authorities to resource for a scenario that may not present itself again for the best part of another two decades at a time when local government is needing to make cut backs is not a realistic solution.

So should we just grin and bear this and accept that sometimes the forces of nature are too powerful for man and woman and their insatiable desires? Well, maybe rather than looking to authority to solve all our problems, we should look closer to home. One of the arguments I have heard in the aftermath of this latest cold snap is that there was a distinct lack of community spirit from good samaritans, people who would clear the pavement of the snow near to their house with the aid of a shovel in order to allow others easier access to get from A to B. After all, the common complaint when the snow fell last week was that while the main roads were dealt with relatively quickly, it was the side roads and cul-de-sacs that were most treacherous because they were not visited by the gritters and so consequently their inhabitants were "snowed in".

But, could these self-same inhabitants have done more to ensure that they and their neighbours were not snowed in for so long? If more people had taken it upon themselves to put themselves forward and clear the covering of snow around their humble abodes, then maybe the gridlock that ensued could have been reduced. There is a pervading attitude that "this is not my responsibility" and in one sense, this is probably right. However, as citizens of this planet, doing good deeds for others is something that everyone will say they strive to do, but very few actually achieve.

This would have been one of those situations where if more people had adopted a more selfless attitude and a spot of "Dunkirk spirit" then many others would have benefited. As it was, it is a sad social commentary of our times that the people that did do it were so rare that they appeared on the local television news and were unlikely to have received the gratitude for their efforts. Such noble gestures would have been more commonplace in generations past but it says much about the fast paced society in which we now live where we have become accustomed to being spoon fed at every opportunity so as to interfere as little as possible with our individual schedules.

So while you can blame authority for being too slow in responding to a situation which they could have managed more effectively had they been more proactive, every one of us could have done a few small things that could have made life easier for everyone else.

Rage Against The Machine winning the Christmas number 1 battle
There are some Christmas traditions that are a staple part of the festive period. Mince pies, secret Santas, office parties that in the cold light of day result in heavy heads and busy photocopier call-out engineers. And of course, the Christmas number 1. For pop anoraks, this coveted position is gold dust and for record executives, reaching the apogee of the charts in time for Christmas is very lucrative. Yet, for everyone else, is being number 1 on Christmas Day such a big deal? The pop charts have never been a meritocracy, but more an exercise in lavish self-promotion.

Of course, the championing of Rage Against The Machine was supposed to be the antidote to the routine inevitable victory for the media machine in propelling the X-Factor winner to Christmas number 1, a position every series winner had reached since 2004. The social network using public were figuratively raging against the machine by downloading the 1992 anthem by the Californian grunge-metal act. And yet, contained within this campaigning was surely the most rich, delicious irony, richer than the Christmas pudding that has likely been affixed to the roof of your mouth since Christmas Day. This irony being that it was the power of another self-serving machine, Facebook, and the publicity that the online campaign had generated, that ensured that this most unfestive of songs reached number 1 in a comparative landslide against the odds.

In one sense, it was certainly good to see that the X-Factor had been defeated. I am likely to be in a relative minority, but I am not a fan of ITV's biggest ratings winner outside of the soaps, mainly because of the inflated sense of ego among the judging panel. Simon Cowell is a difficult man to like, even if in one sense you have to grudgingly respect how powerful and influential he is, to the point that he could pull the plug on the X-Factor tomorrow if he so chose to. It is his show and Cowell strikes me as the autocratic type who will do what he wants, when he wants. As a human being though, he strikes me as a charmless, arrogant man who would be a shoo-in on any list I would compile of celebrities I would gladly, notionally throw in the alligator pit at feeding time. But beyond the head honcho, the rest of the judges are worthy of receiving a horse's head in their stocking at Christmas, not least Dannii Minogue, who appeared to miss out in the supply of charm in the Minogue household.

The past few years have seen the Christmas charts become a predictable formality with the winner known as soon as the winner of that year's X-Factor was revealed. Not that they are part of a profession that elicits any sympathy, but one imagines that bookmakers will have been none too pleased with this trend given that it will have ended the Christmas charts as a betting heat. But maybe we should also remind ourselves that before the X-Factor came along, the Christmas charts were hardly renowned for their quality control, given that such musical icons as Bob The Builder had previously scaled the summit at Christmas. The ease with which music is available now via instantaneous downloading has meant that novelty songs released at this time of year retain their popularity and this can be seen by glancing at the full top 40 at Christmas this year.

The choice of "Killing In The Name Of" as the campaign song to challenge the might of the Cowell machine was a curious one, not least because the song was originally released nearly eighteen years ago. The lyrics of the song have an anarchic tone and would seem to strike a chord with the rebellious teenager that does not want to conform. Maybe this makes it an appropriate song for this campaign given that its purpose was to challenge the accepted practice of the established order, i.e. The X-Factor and the media machine, always determining the outcome of the Christmas number one.

But while the intensity of the Facebook campaign certainly helped to propel Rage Against The Machine to number 1, it got there as much because of the lack of warmth for Joe McElderry and his song "The Climb". As I stated above, I rarely watch the X-Factor and I missed the final this year, so I am not really qualified to offer an appraisal on the merits of McElderry against his rivals. However, when you consider that his song only sold around 450,000 downloads and copies in its first week when the X-Factor final pulled in around 13 million viewers, that hardly serves as a ringing endorsement for McElderry.

I am no great fan of Rage Against The Machine and to be honest, "Killing In The Name Of" is not my mug of musical Twinings. The early 1990s era of hard edged, angry American grunge and guitar music rather passed me by as a generic genre (try saying that after a few Christmas vinos) and this song is no different in this respect. Nonetheless, I am always happy to see anything that knocks Simon Cowell and his cronies down a peg or two, so all the Facebook users that joined the campaign should go for a stroll in a country field and thereby give themselves a pat on the back. I doubt the victory will be a permanent one though and I am sure with a stronger X-Factor contender next winter, we will see that machine restored to its customary number one spot at Christmas.

For the rest of us though, if you would like to download a cheery, wintry tune ideal for cold mornings, I suggest you download "Winter Winds" by Mumford & Sons. Without the support of the media machine or of a global social networking site, however, this fine track only made it to number 48 in the charts earlier this month. A shame really and that tells you all need to know about the charts and their credibility.

Manchester City sacking Mark Hughes
Among the popular press, there has been much consternation and disgust over the cut-throat sacking of Mark Hughes immediately after Manchester City's victory against Sunderland on 19 December with former Inter Milan manager Roberto Mancini immediately appointed in his place. Yet, despite the outrage over City's decision and their conduct, can anyone honestly say that City were either wrong in removing Hughes from office, or in the way they conducted their business?

First things first. As a Manchester United supporter of nearly 25 years, I have fond memories from my childhood of Mark Hughes as a player. In the early days of Manchester United establishing themselves as the all-conquering force they were to become in the 1990s and beyond, Hughes was a cornerstone of the United team and a player who had an uncanny knack of scoring a crucial goal at a vital time in order to rescue United, none more so than an equalising goal he scored in the FA Cup semi-final in 1994 against Oldham Athletic with 30 seconds of extra time remaining and United staring down the barrel of a defeat. United won the replay, defeated Chelsea in the final and completed a league and cup double, but without Hughes's intervention that afternoon, their season could easily have unravelled.

While I had fond memories of Hughes as a player and can remember the disappointment I felt on the day he left United to join Chelsea in 1995, I have been less impressed by some of his conduct as a manager, in which he has at times shown himself to be a bully and has shown a lack of respect to both his former manager at United, Sir Alex Ferguson and also to Arsene Wenger. Now, you might say this is a good thing that he is not scared to ruffle a few feathers and does not constantly fall in awe of the established order. I have no problem with that as long as you retain a respect for people that have achieved much in the game and at this point in his managerial career, Hughes seemed to show a distinct lack of respect to managers who had achieved far more in the game than he has mustered hitherto.

Hughes's dismissal was certainly a cut-throat, cold and calculated move. But the move was not a surprise and his position had been the subject of speculation for several months with a number of high profile names linked with the job. Hughes had not been appointed by the current Manchester City owners and their appointed hierarchy. He had been made manager by the former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who then relinquished his ownership not long afterwards in the wake of allegations of corruption. This led to the club being bought by a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family and the promise of untold riches.

Since last summer, City have demonstrated their financial muscle with a string of high profile signings, including Robinho for £32 million and the acquisition of Carlos Tevez from Manchester United (or technically from Carlos Tevez's owning company) for £47 million. There has been much speculation as to whether Hughes himself sanctioned these signings, or whether these were moves made by City's board so to show off the weight of their purchasing power. Robinho in particular has only fleetingly shown glimpses of his true potential and it is speculated that he is eyeing a move back to Spain, where a pack-a-mack is less likely to be needed.

Despite spending over £40 million on defenders during the summer, as well as also signing Tevez, Adebayor and Santa Cruz to bolster their forward line, City were only in sixth place at the point at which Hughes was relieved of his duties. In normal circumstances, sixth place would be an acceptable position and City have lost only two league games in the first half of the campaign, the fewest of any team in the top flight this season so far. But the flip side to that has been that City had won only two of their last ten league matches under Hughes, drawing seven of them. Of his signings, only goalkeeper Shay Given, midfielder Gareth Barry and his fellow Welshman Craig Bellamy have been successful acquisitions while some of his other signings have rarely justified their fee.

In most clubs' predicaments, a top six place at the halfway point in the season and two losses would be gladly accepted. But the mistake that the media are making is that Manchester City are no longer in the realms of an ordinary club. The amount of investment that has been put into the club has seen to that. Manchester City is a "project" to its owners, they only want to be involved for a finite amount of time while it serves their interests, achieves it purpose and they will then move on. But for the project to meet its needs, Manchester City will need to win trophies on the pitch. Finished in the top six is not good enough for them, they have to be seen to be in contention for trophies, although it is worth considering that they soon to play in the Carling Cup semi-final against Manchester United.

Mark Hughes said in the aftermath of his dismissal that he was on target to meet Manchester City's pre-season objectives of making the top six and reaching 70 points. That may well be the case, but what he may have overlooked is that events elsewhere may have seen City's owners move the goalposts. At the start of the campaign, most observers would have expected that the established elite quartet of Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool would be the top 4 sides at the end of the campaign, not necessarily in that order. This would not have been an unreasonable prediction given that these teams have occupied the top 4 places in the Premier League in each of the past four seasons.

However, the regression of Liverpool this season has meant a place in the top four is up for grabs and City's owners will no doubt have expected their team to fully capitalise on this. That they have not done so and that both Tottenham and Aston Villa are currently ahead of them in the table despite having fewer resources available to them is likely to be what triggered the City power brokers' dissatisfaction in Hughes and questioned his ability to continue to be the right man for the job.

Roberto Mancini was appointed to the job and it would seem that he was first approached several weeks before he actually was installed in post. This will not sit well with some well meaning people, but the consequences of City sacking a manager and not having someone immediately available to take over would have been counter-productive from their point of view. Whether Mancini remains in the hot seat in the long term remains to be seen. Although his haul of three Serie A titles with Inter Milan seems impressive, in reality this was only possible due to the match fixing episode in Italy that weakened their rivals. The first of those titles was won by virtue of two teams finishing above Inter both being disqualified while the next title was won with Juventus having been relegated to the Italian second division as punishment and AC Milan having been docked 20 points. With a World Cup next summer, one or two high profile coaches could become available after the finals that City may wish to consider.

It has been suggested that the sacking of Hughes could result in some mutiny among Manchester City players unhappy at his removal from office and understandably the volatile Craig Bellamy has already been rumoured to have had a difference of opinion with Mancini, a rumour that will have been further strengthened by Bellamy's removal from the starting line-up against Stoke on Boxing Day. I am not sure this mutiny will surface though as players ultimately have a duty to be professional to their club, regardless of who is picking the team and with a World Cup looming on a horizon, players will want to ensure they are playing regularly in order to make sure they are in prime form come the summer.

Changing manager at the time they did means that City can bring in some more signings in the summer, possibly "name" signings that will be to the liking of City's top brass and who will signal their statement of intent from now on. While their Chief Executive Garry Cook's corporate tubthumping and promise to make Manchester City the biggest club in the world seems a little ahead of itself given that they need to establish themselves as the biggest club in their city first, there is no question that City's owners expect an immediate return on their investment and will expect a top four finish at the end of the season so that they can push on and challenge for the Premier League title next season. You may say City need to walk before they can run, but that does not appear to be an option that their owners wish to entertain.

Political party leaders to appear in televised debates before the election
It was announced last week that all three of the leaders of the main political parties in the United Kingdom will appear in three separate televised debates prior to the General Election. The election can take place no later than May 2010, but there has been some recent speculation that an election could be called early in the New Year and will take place in March. The three debates are likely to take place each on separate television networks, with Sky News showing one debate, the BBC another and ITV showing the third. This move is a good one in terms of fairness but also having three different chairs for the debates should ensure that a wide spectrum of issues are covered.

It is good that these debates will be televised and will be broadcast live into people's sitting rooms as it at least means that the public have the opportunity to hear what the three main political parties have to offer, what style of leadership each leader would adopt and what solutions each party have to the current political, social, economic and environmental challenges facing the world, and more pertinently, this country. That way, when you hear someone say that all political leaders "are as bad as each other" you will at least hope they have reached this conclusion having watched the televised debates and heard what each of the wannabe residents of 10 Downing Street have had to say.

The party leaders giving their consent to their attendance at these debates is all well and good, but the debates will only be useful exercise if they are chaired effectively and if there is an opportunity for audience participation, with a range of questions on a whole host of subjects being asked and not just a series of planted questions that suit the soundbites, causes and agendas of any one of the three main leaders. There are obviously some common themes that the public would like clear answers to so they can make a rational and informed decision on where to place their cross on the ballot paper on election day. These will include such hot potatoes as asylum, law and order, education, the health service, taxation and the management of the economy. But there are likely to be other fringe issues of interest to some voters and which will most likely have a major bearing on what way they will vote. It is important then that the format of the programme allows this and that the chair finds the right balance between giving each leader enough time to speak but also allowing enough topics to be covered.

The role of the host will be a crucial one in ensuring that the three leaders answer the questions posed with minimal repetition, deviation and hesitation. Although the three amigos will get more than a minute to elaborate on their given subjects, it is likely that the programmes will last no more than an hour and when you consider that two of the debates will be on commercial channels at prime time when product placement is of paramount importance to the advertisers, in reality there could only be a 50 minute window in which four or five topics and/or questions will need to be covered. Therefore, the host will need to ensure that the typical evasive qualities associated with political figures is kept to a minimum to keep things moving but they should also challenge anyone caught dodging a question they do not like the content of to provide a straight answer.

One would suspect that Adam Boulton, Sky News's political correspondent will be charged with chairing the debate on their network. In canine terms, Boulton is a Jack Russell among political interviewers. He may occasionally be an ankle biter but his bark is much worse than his bite. There are certainly more political heavyweights around who the party leaders would much rather not be interrogated by. There would be no shortage of figures at the BBC who could be candidates for chairing their debate, ranging from the staple part of their election night coverage, that cuddly Labrador David Dimbleby as well as the occasionally deceptively vicious German Shepherd with big ears, Andrew Marr.

But to make the debate more of a spectacle and to provide the triumverate of leaders the most amount of discomfort, I would advise selecting one of the BBC political Rottweilers who will be prepared to rip some flesh if the questions are not suitably answered. I am referring to either Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys. I would expect Dimbleby to be the safe appointment that the BBC will make, but it would be a more entertaining spectacle if Paxman was put in the hotseat and allowed to show the same disdain for the party leaders that he usually reserves for students with no knowledge of Shakespeare.

Over at ITV, with Sir Trevor McDonald having pretty much retired, it is hard to see who they would ask to chair their debate other than one of the regular two presenters of News At Ten, although I suppose the possibility of the dreaded Piers Morgan hosting their showpiece could not be ruled out given that he appears to be retained by their network these days. Let's just hope no-one raises this possibility to the execs at ITV.

As we have determined, the role of host is going to be very important for each of these debates but the format of the shows will play a part in how useful they are too. Ideally, you would want the shows to work to a format something like this. The show allows for time for 4 main questions to be asked by the assembled audience, possibly 5 in the case of the BBC debate where there will be no interruptions for "important messages". Each leader will get a chance to answer the question and say what their party's stance is and there should be time for there to be open discussion, indeed argument between the other leaders. But a balance has to be found between this type of discussion and allowing the debate to degenerate into a diatribe of "this is what 13 years of Labour Government has given you". As with Question Time, there should be some opportunity for supplementary comments to be made by audience members to raise points that were not covered in the politicians' answers.

It is also to be hoped that at the end of the programme, adequate time is provided for each leader to have their own two minute soliloquy where the rostrum is entirely theirs and they use the 120 seconds to state exactly why they should be leader of the country, what changes they would bring and why they feel they can do it better than the other assembled candidates. This is, after all, what a candidate for a job would be expected to do in front of an assembled interview panel to convince them that they are the only person who they should consider for the job. Admittedly, this will be an interview panel of upwards of 100 members of a studio audience and somewhere in the region of 7 or 8 million television viewers rather than just 3 people in an air conditioned office, but a good performance in this section could seal the deal.

Televised debates are a key part of the American election build-up and although there are times when we are right to tire of the American influence on popular culture in the United Kingdom, this would seem to be a very powerful way of reaching out to a public that finds itself somewhat disengaged in politics and apathetic towards its politicians in the wake of the expenses scandal, but still all the more immersed in the cult of celebrity and its many pitfalls and hypocrisies. A good showing in one of these debates may not be enough on its own to win an election, but a weak showing from one of the leaders could certainly be enough for them to lose it. But at least putting the main protagonists in a prime time televised slot to discuss the key issues at least means that those who claim not be informed about politics have no excuse for their ignorance should they not know what they will do come election day.


That's just about it from me for today. This is likely to be my last blog of 2009 and so I would just like to say thanks to those of you who have been kind enough to read my blog during this year. I apologise for the periods when I have been absent from writing duties and I hope to post more frequently during 2010. That's one New Year's resolution I hope not to have broken by January 5th! All that remains is for me to wish you all a Happy New Year and I hope that 2010 delivers the prosperity, good health and sweet smell of success that you are aspiring to.