Playlists 19 to 22

PLAYLIST #19
The Kinks - Days
The Beatles - Day Tripper
Cherry Ghost - Dead Man's Suit
Travis - Dear Diary
White Lies - Death
Coldplay - Death and All His Friends
The Thrills - Deckchairs & Cigarettes
The Kinks - Dedicated Follower of Fashion
Jamiroquai - Deeper Underground
Fatboy Slim & Macy Gray - Demons
Blondie - Denis
Manic Street Preachers - A Design For Life
U2 - Desire
The Eagles - Desperado
James - Destiny Calling

PLAYLIST #20
Prince - Diamonds and Pearls
Madonna - Die Another Day
Sheryl Crow - The Difficult Kind
Deacon Blue - Dignity
Oasis - Digsy's Dinner
Michael Jackson - Dirty Diana
INXS - Disappear
Snow Patrol - Disaster Button
Pulp - Disco 2000
Mercury Rev - The Distance From Her To There
Crowded House - Distant Sun
Corinne Bailey Rae - Diving For Hearts
Echo & The Bunnymen - Do It Clean

PLAYLIST #21
Pulp - Do You Remember The First Time
Basement Jaxx - Do Your Thing
Fyfe Dangerfield - Don't Be Shy
Joss Stone - Don't Cha Wanna Ride
Crowded House - Don't Dream It's Over
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Don't Forget Me
Richard Hawley - Don't Get Hung Up In Your Soul
The Pretenders - Don't Get Me Wrong
Hothouse Flowers - Don't Go
Oasis - Don't Go Away
Razorlight - Don't Go Back To Dalston
Sharleen Spiteri - Don't Keep Me Waiting
The Beatles - Don't Let Me Down
Coldplay - Don't Panic
The Thrills - Don't Steal Our Sun

PLAYLIST #22
Oasis - Don't Look Back In Anger
The Libertines - Don't Look Back Into The Sun
Fleetwood Mac - Don't Stop
Michael Jackson - Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough
Queen - Don't Stop Me Now
Crowded House - Don't Stop Now
Madonna - Don't Tell Me
Amy MacDonald - Don't Tell Me That It's Over
The Coral - Don't Think You're The First
Dirty Vegas - Don't Throw It Away
The Noisettes - Don't Upset The Rhythm
Simple Minds - Don't You (Forget About Me)
Manic Street Preachers - Door To The River
Delphic - Doubt
Men At Work - Down Under
Texas - Drawing Crazy Patterns

Playlist update - playlists 15 to 18

Continuing my alphabetically themed playlists, I have now made it as far as D. Here are my recent musical listening pleasures for your delectation.

PLAYLIST #15
David Bowie - China Girl
Nerina Pallot - Cigarette
Oasis - Cigarettes & Alcohol
U2 - City Of Blinding Lights
Muse - City Of Delusion
Arcade Fire - City With No Children
Delphic - Clarion Call
Coldplay - Clocks
Corinne Bailey Rae - Closer
Dirty Vegas - Closer
Semisonic - Closing Time
Simple Minds - Colours Fly and Catherine Wheel
Nirvana - Come As You Are

PLAYLIST #16
Embrace - Come Back To What You Know
James - Come Home
The Beatles - Come Together
Neill MacColl & Kathryn Williams - Come With Me
Travis - Coming Around
Paolo Nutini - Coming Up Easy
Pulp - Common People
The Coral - Confessions of ADDD
Squeeze - Cool For Cats
Midlake - Core Of Nature
Jamiroquai - Cosmic Girl
Delphic - Counterpoint
Primal Scream - Country Girl
Bruce Springsteen - Cover Me

PLAYLIST #17
Richard Ashcroft - C'mon People (We're Making It Now)
Dandy Warhols - Country Leaver
Snow Patrol - Crack The Shutters
James - Crazy
Queen - Crazy Little Thing Called Love
Ladyhawke - Crazy World
Prince - Cream
Echo & The Bunnymen - Crocodiles
The Courteneers - Cross My Heart & Hope To Fly
Brandon Flowers - Crossfire
Jimi Hendrix - Crosstown Traffic
U2 - Crumbs From Your Table
Texas - Cry
The Charlatans - Cry Yourself To Sleep
New Order - Crystal

PLAYLIST #18
The xx - Crystalised
The Thrills - The Curse of Comfort
Echo & The Bunnymen - The Cutter
Oasis - D'You Know What I Mean
Glasvegas - Daddy's Gone
Nerina Pallot - Damascus
Regina Spektor - Dance Anthem Of The 80s
Bruce Springsteen - Dancing In The Dark
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Dani California
Bat For Lashes - Daniel
Mercury Rev - The Dark Is Rising
The Kinks - David Watts
Sharleen Spiteri - Day Tripping
Coldplay - Daylight
The Beatles - A Day In The Life

No pets have been harmed in the writing of this blog!

Greetings.

I trust the summer recess has been good to you all. The summer was good while it lasted, which as usual, was for all of a fortnight. And plenty has happened while I have abstained from rambling in these parts. We have a new coalition Government which largely led to condemnation (did you see what I did there?).

Staying on the political scene, a former premier decided to release his memoirs recently and was seemingly keen to stress that dossiers were not the only thing he had occasion to sex up. The publication of his book provoked riotous scenes at a book signing event in Dublin. Such violent behaviour had not been witnessed in the Emerald Isle's chief Metropolis since the Great Guinness Shortage of 1987.

And in a summer where there have been scenes of harrowing poverty in certain parts of the world, it has been good to see that the British press has, as ever, provided people with a true sense of perspective by devoting most of its column inches to philandering footballers and a woman whose idea of a cheap laugh was to put a cat in a wheelie bin. It was quite appropriate that the woman in question came from Coventry, given that her detractors did not need to send her very far in their condemnation. Perhaps she should get a job as an RSPCA inspector. I mean, in the history of inappropriate jobs, it would be about as appropriate as, say, making a world leader who committed to 2 conflicts in the Middle East a peace envoy for the region. I can assure all my readers, however, that no animals have been subjected to cruelty in writing of the latest instalment of this blog.

Right, well duty calls. So let's get down to business.

9 years and what have we learnt?
I sit here writing this blog as 12 September is soon to become 13 September, but it was Saturday's date that has left a lasting impression on everyone. September 11, 9/11 as the Americans call it. 911 is of course the American emergency services number and it is somewhat poignant to recall how members of the emergency services made incredible sacrifices almost 9 years to the day in the commercial heart of New York City.

Every generation has those "I remember where I was when..." days that defines their era, that provides an association to a particular moment in their life. I would think people currently in their 40s and 50s would put the day of Elvis Presley's death in that category. People in their 60s could possibly recall where they were when they heard of the news of JFK's assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald on a grassy knoll in Dallas. More recently, the death of Michael Jackson being announced last year via the various breaking news channel brought an almost surreal twist to what, in essence, was not a huge shock.

To say that 9/11 was one of those days though does not really do it justice. It has probably been the most significant, defining news event of all of our lives. It is said that when America sneezes, the United Kingdom catches a cold, but it would not just have been the UK that caught the contagion that fateful day 9 years ago. The whole world had their eyes transfixed on their television screens, made only too aware of their own vulnerability in a dangerous world.

It goes without saying that I remember exactly where I was on 11 September 2001 and what I was doing. I remember the afternoon in almost precise detail. Back then, I was a slip of a lad at 23 years and 1 month old and had graduated from university earlier that summer and like many graduates, hoped that my scroll would lead me to shiny and prosperous places the other side of the rainbow. I had started work in my new job a few weeks earlier, except that my place of work was not altogether new as I had previously completed a work placement with my employers while at university.

On that afternoon, some 9 years ago, I found myself asked to carry out a job for which I barely felt qualified. I was to participate on an interview panel to interview an interim manager of the organisation's fledgling catering project. Given that my culinary skills have never quite matched those of Gordon Ramsay or even Rusty Lee, this was something of an unusual request. The interview itself was largely forgettable in the detail except that the person interviewed was successful in their recruitment and held the fort until a permanent manager was found, a manager who I believe remains in that job to this day.

What happened after the interview should have been mundane but it was the first glimpse I had into the reality that while my working day had been comparatively unusual, it would not be changing the path of my life. The interview had been taking place at my organisation's head office which was not where I usually worked. I had to go and retrieve some belongings from my usual office and collect the post before making my way home. The usual office was just slightly more than a 10 minute walk from head office. For the hardened Brightonians amongst you, it was situated next to the site of the old Co-op department store off the London Road.

The first consciousness I had of the life changing events across the pond was when I strolled past a newsagents along my walk back to the office. Outside was a newspaper placard with the headline 'plane hits Twin Towers'. Normally the words on newspaper placards tend to pass me by, but there was something about the power of these few, short words that resonated in me. I just remember thinking 'that's got to have caused some damage'.

The possibility that a big event was taking place was reinforced as I walked up the side street en route back to the usual office. The road, (which again for the Brightonians amongst you, was Upper Lewes Road), is a completely residential road with rows of terraced houses and where a lot of the properties' front doors are not shielded from the main road by a garden path, and therefore you get a good glimpse of people's living rooms. On that afternoon, nearly every living room of every property I had occasion to glance at had a television on and from what I could make out, nearly every one of them seemed to have their television tuned to the BBC News. There was also a remarkable quietness on the streets; there was barely anybody around, which given that this was around 4:45 pm on an early September afternoon a week after children had gone back to school did not seem quite right. By this time, I realised that something dramatic must have been unfolding and I should get home and see what the extent of the developments were.

There are thousands of images that people will recall from that horrific day and the moments when they first watched the scenes of atrocity on their television. What particularly stays with me is that Arsenal were playing a Champions League football match on the television that night in Mallorca, which in their infinite wisdom, UEFA allowed to go ahead despite nobody being in the mood for the contest given the more significant events in New York. Thankfully, UEFA saw sense the next day and all of the matches scheduled for the Wednesday night, including Manchester United's match in Greece, were rightly postponed.

Nine years on from this life affirming day, when ordinary New Yorkers reported to their offices for what they expected to be a fruitful Tuesday at work only to never be able to return home to tell their loved ones of their achievements and the deals of the century they clinched during the day, it is pertinent to ask what has the world learnt from what happened that day and what the future holds. One has to say that the uncertainty and terror that gripped the world then remains as much of a problem now, albeit perhaps the sources of both is more widespread than it was in 2001.

What has become more apparent is that the "Special Relationship" that the United Kingdom believes it enjoys with the US is not as mutually beneficial as it would like to hope it is. Indeed, closeness with the US has exposed the UK to greater risk of terror on its shores due to it being damned by association by those opposed to the US's values, or perceived lack of them. This was tangibly demonstrated by the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005, a day which I also remember with clarity. I remember going for a job interview in London less than a fortnight later which was held a stone's throw away from The Oval tube station. A couple of days after my interview, an explosion was detonated at that very tube station.

The anniversary of 9/11, as well as the release of Tony Blair's memoirs serve as a reminder of the great work and sacrifices that British troops have made to attempt to keep the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, many of these servants to their country have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and become martyrs, statistics of a Government atrocity chart. The grey numbers do not do justice to their work, fighting for a cause they believed in, if not necessarily in conflicts they agreed with.

The two key conflicts which the UK have committed their troops to post-9/11 have been in Iraq and Afghanistan and in both cases, there seems to be no sign of the original objectives for taking troops to those countries being met. The purpose of being in Iraq was misreported at the time and while removing an evil dictator by using what was tantamount to illegal force may be seen as a victory by some, the initial reservations that I had of there being no coherent exit strategy and no thought given to what backlash there could be after Saddam Hussein was overthrown appear to remain as salient now as they were in 2003.

I think that there was an expectation that all Iraqi people would be eternally grateful to the western forces for overthrowing the oppressive regime running their country, forgetting that to a good many people, Saddam Hussein and his henchmen were regarded as heroes, standing up to the might of overbearing western forces who were sticking their nose in a trough that was not theirs. Added to which, many Iraqis would have lost their livelihoods during the course of the conflict which damaged land and crops and so the average Iraqi who earned his living from his or her country's natural resources saw their prospects of future prosperity greatly diminished, not enhanced from the events leading to Saddam's very public execution. And yet these people were expected to just be grateful? Hmm, doesn't sound very plausible, does it?

And then we have Afghanistan, where the UK's presence in the aftermath of 9/11 was to try to aid in the tracking down of Osama Bin Laden. Nine years on, and Bin Laden is still at large, presumed to still be alive, but whose presence is only confirmed by occasional speeches appearing on AlJazeera and via YouTube. The real fight is taking place with the Taliban and with splinter groups who have made their way across the border from Pakistan. The clock is ticking and yet no-one appears to be any nearer to resolving the original issues, all the while barely a week passes without there being a news report of another atrocity of a British serviceperson on Afghan shores.

Despite there being no resolution in sight in these Middle Eastern countries and no sign of short term wholesale withdrawals of troops, the United Kingdom still seems happy to provide unwielding support to the United States in their tackling of the enemy of the day who does not share their Capitalist ideals. This suggests that 9/11 and what followed with the July bombings in London in 2005 has not completely taught us of the perils of getting drawn into other people's battles. The next generation of possible terror comes from countries whose potential hording of nuclear weapons is not known but should not be under-estimated. If China or North Korea have a serious grudge against an overzealous enemy, they could have the nuclear warhead that could cause lasting damage, so the UK must be selective in any future causes it chooses to fight. The danger is if the United States elects a Republican candidate in 2 years time. Barack Obama's popularity ratings are low in his home country right now, primarily because of the global recession. Should Obama be usurped in 2 years time, however, the alternative could spell bad news for those who prefer a peaceful existence.

The behaviour of the American pastor, Terry Jones, only further inflames religious tensions between Muslim devotees and the Western world. In fact, as his namesake from a certain British comedy troupe might attest to, he is not the Messiah just a very naughty boy. Jones' bugbear about a mosque being situated in the World Trade Center regeneration area of New York was flawed on the grounds that it is accusing Islam and all of its followers of being responsible for, and damned by associated with the 9/11 bombings. This type of generalisation does nobody any favours and it is why people in their everyday surroundings display negative behaviour in the company of their fellow citizens from an Islamic persuasion, at least on a sub-conscious level. By this I mean that when we have been on a train journey and we see a bearded Arabian gentleman get up from his seat, carrying his backpack and walking through the double doors, a good many of us will, sometimes without realising it at the time, keep our gaze focused on where they are going. There will always be an innocent explanation, usually involving the carrying out of essential bodily functions, but this is the impact that Terry Jones and other self-appointed spokespeople have in our everyday lives. If there's no smoke, there should be no fire.

You would hope and wish that the office workers who perished in the rubble in 2001 did not die in vain and that the lifelong trauma that emergency crews suffered that day would at least lead people to learning some lessons. But, can any of us say that life is any more certain now than it was then? The net has widened so far as potential future feuds are concerned, while existing ones seem no nearer to a peaceful conclusion. People may not think about the dangers facing them on a daily basis, but the culture of fear has definitely intensified in the years since 9/11 and fear and ignorance added to fundamental cultural or religious differences are the ingrained characteristics in every conflict of note ever fought, right back to the Battle of Hastings. The difference is that back then the enemy came armed with a crossbow, now their weapon of choice is not known for certain, but the not knowing only adds to the fear.

The 9 years have been a paradox in that the world has advanced so much, and yet the challenges remain as complex as they were then and the lessons heeded appear minimal.

Hague should man up
It seems to be the season to be slinging mud at the moment, with the popular press printing a series of exposes on celebrities involved in acts of debauchery and treachery. Even the broadsheets have been getting in on the act, with the Daily Telegraph highly prominent in the press coverage of William Hague's sharing of a hotel room with an advisor. In case you missed this earth shattering story, in reality, it was a mistral in a Wedgwood.

According to what we were told, Hague shared a room with his "special advisor" (special advisor, nudge nudge, wink wink) when he had an overnight stay in Birmingham after one of the televised pre-electoral leader debates. The pair shared a twin room rather than each getting their own single room. On the surface this just seems like a cost cutting initiative when you can imagine that every last hanger-on with the three political parties would have been booking up rooms for an overnight stay in England's second city.

There will be those that find two men sharing a room an unusual circumstance. Yet, why is this exactly? There was a time when this was quite an innocent occurrence. Lest we forget that Morecambe and Wise shared a bed for comic effect in many of their sketches and yet I do not recall there being any sexual liaison suggested about these long standing comic partners. You will say of course that people would know that they were acting, it was not for real, but there are those that believe that soap operas are real, so surely someone, somewhere must have sniggered, must have wondered if Eric really did have a thing for his little Ern, but I am not aware of anyone believing this.

I have shared a hotel room on a few occasions on overnight stays with male friends without, at least to my knowledge, there being any amusement or rumour. On a holiday once in the glorious city of Prague, I shared a room with my holiday companion in which twin beds were provided. Upon arriving in the room, the first 5 minutes were spent trying to find suitable enough distance between the 2 beds so that we would not disturb one another with our post-Staropramen and dumplings influenced snoring.

William Hague's mistake in this situation was not that he shared a room with an aide, which seems pretty trivial the more you think about it, but that he chose to tackle the issue in quite a confrontational way, resulting in those that wanted to believe he was gay actually having more amunition for their argument. Hague has always tried to present himself with a slightly faux, regular alpha male image. The tough Yorkshire lad from humble beginnings who could drink 14 pints if the occasion demanded. You kind of sensed that he was striving to relive his early 20s when rather than enjoying a cocktail of pints and kebabs, he was more likely propping up the bar at the Conservative Club discussing the possible reform of the House of Lords.

Mentioning that he and his wife had been trying, unsuccessfully, to produce offspring seemed a really unnecessary disclosure which compromised his wife's privacy after what surely for her had been a distressing ordeal. And this compromise achieved absolutely nothing other than getting people to gossip more fervently than they had before.

It would have helped also, if Hague had taken more care over his attire when photo opportunities arose. Allowing himself to be caught on camera wearing a tight fitting, plain long-sleeved white T-shirt and baseball cap while in the company of his aide, wearing a cheesy grin was not a smart move. In fact, the photograph could only have been made camper had Graham Norton and Gok Wan hovered into the background while wearing spandex, dancing to the tune of YMCA.

What is particularly disturbing about this episode is why Hague is ashamed to be suggested as being a homosexual by a very small minority of ill informed nobodies. Why does Hague feel this undermines the ability for him to his job or makes him a potential figure of ridicule, when he holds other traits that are more likely to make him a social outcast and for which he should feel a sense of shame; namely that he is a Conservative MP. It also calls into question why one's sexuality is of crucial importance to the media other than providing the source of idle gossip, or indeed why someone's sexuality is of any relevance to the job they are undertaking. There are several MPs from within Hague's own party who are openly gay and it does not seem to have impaired their progress untowardly within the Westminster corridors.

William Hague has shown himself to be a heavyweight figure in British politics over the past decade or so and has generally fostered respect on all sides of the house, despite his party allegiance and his quirky persona. Given this level of respect, Hague really should not have got embroiled in full scale confrontation with the press concerning the rumour mill because he has now only added credence to nasty rumours where no genuine foundations previously existed.

Cricket in a fix
From William Hague to William Hill. The sports pages that have not focused on the extra curricular activities of Wayne Rooney have focused on the spot fixing allegations concerning the three Pakistani cricketers alleged to have bowled no balls at specific times in the fourth test against England on the hallowed turf of Lord's.

For those of you not up on cricketing terminology; and let's face it, cricket is a sport that polarises people more than most between those that feel a day's play is a less appealing alternative than a paint drying convention and those that feel the games subtleties and idiocyncracies make it a thing of beauty; what is being suggested is that three Pakistani cricketers conspired so that bowlers would put the whole of their front foot over the crease when delivering the ball, thereby invalidating the delivery and allowing a punter somewhere in deepest Asia to make a killing if the illegal delivery occurred at the time of the punter's choosing.

The three Pakistani cricketers alleged to be involved in the conspiracy included the Pakistan captain Salman Butt, plus two Pakistan seam bowlers, Mohammad Asif and 18 year old Mohammad Aamir, who had caught the eye during England's innings in the Lord's test match by taking 6 wickets during the first 2 sessions of the match. It was also Aamir who unwittingly seemed to give the game away by being shown to bowl a no-ball where his front foot was not just over the line, but almost halfway up the pitch. At least his colleague Mohammad Asif had only narrowly put his foot over the line, showing that he knew exactly what was required.

It is important to emphasise that nothing has been proven against the Pakistani trio as yet, however damning the News of the World's video evidence would appear to be and how it fits with when no-balls were bowled during the match. It is also important to distinguish between "spot fixing" which is the crime alleged to have been perpetrated in the Lord's test match and "match fixing", where a team supposedly conspires to throw a match in order to produce monetary reward either for themselves or a third party. That is not to condone the actions of the perpetrators if they are found guilty, but a distinguishment does need to be made, particularly because of the circumstances within this particular test match.

On the first day, England had endured one of their typical batting collapses with the Pakistani bowlers taking full advantage of the low cloud cover on an overcast day in St John's Wood. The aforementioned Mohammad Aamir had produced a golden spell of bowling, taking six wickets as England had stumbled to 102 for 7 just after lunch on the first afternoon. If Pakistan could skittle the three remaining England wickets quickly, Pakistan would have a session and a half to bat themselves and likely make mincemeat of the England total. Given what was to be exposed by the News of the World, what happened next would only arouse suspicion amongst the cynics.

Pakistan did not take three quick wickets, in fact they did not take another wicket for the rest of the day. Eventually, Pakistan did take a wicket, but it was not until after lunch the following day by which time England had added another 331 runs and both Jonathan Trott and Stuart Broad had scored huge centuries. Broad finally perished for 169, having played the innings of his life and produced a score he is never likely to surpass given that he is more renowned as a bowler. South African born Trott was last man out for England having scored 184. The innings that these two players had produced had turned the whole match on its head, with England posting an imposing score of 446 for their first innings which would barely have been conceivable just 24 hours earlier.

This massive partnership between Trott and Broad completely demoralised Pakistan and during the course of the second afternoon, their team lost 14 wickets. Firstly they were bowled out for a paltry 74 runs and as they were so far behind England's first innings total were asked to follow on. They did so and found themselves 41 for 4 by the close of play on day 2, staring down the barrel of a heavy innings defeat. By the time the third day's play commenced on Sunday morning, The News of the World had released their allegations both in print and via video media and England wrapped up a crushing victory with muted celebrations when Pakistan were bowled out for 147 just after lunch. An excellent score at snooker, but a sub-standard one in test cricket.

It is easy to see, given the nature of the allegations and given the previous history of controversy surrounding Pakistan, how people could believe that Pakistan had conspired to throw the match. It maybe true that certain Pakistan players had been made aware of the story about to break in the Sunday press and they took their eye off the ball, to speak in appropriate cricketing parlance. But I think this does not take into account the match situation. Pakistan had put England in trouble when the conditions favoured their swing bowlers. England started to get themselves out of trouble when the sun came out on the first day, which meant conditions became less favourable for the bowlers and the longer messrs Trott and Broad stayed in and were seeing the cherry like a football, so the Pakistan bowlers became more erratic as they became tired and demoralised.

The possibility that Pakistan could have contributed to the throwing of the match should not be completely dismissed, but there is no real evidence to suggest that their capitulation was anything more than a classic example of the schizophrenic make-up of their nation's cricketers. Both Pakistan, and to a certain extent India, have always been countries that have had two faces when playing the game and you can never be certain of whether Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde will be in town on any given day. The manner of Pakistan's meek surrender was certainly unfortunate given the timing of the spot fixing allegations becoming public knowledge, but it just seemed to show all the classic signs of Pakistan giving up the ghost when the match got away from them rather than appearing to be a deliberate attempt to make financial gain.

There have been calls in the aftermath of this scandal to review the place of betting in sport, with critics of the vice accusing it of intoxicating sport with the rife aftertaste of corruption. There is no question that betting does expose sport to the dangers of illegal fixing. Serial gamblers who wish to make a killing have their contacts and have their ways of influencing outcomes to make individual gain. This has been seen in horse racing over the years, a sport that is possibly only matched in the mainstream by boxing for its potential for corruption.

People that are suggesting that betting should be banned, however, are missing a fundamental point. That point is that the gamblers who are betting on the timing of no-balls in cricket matches and other specific outcomes are often people who are betting in countries where gambling is illegal, therefore they are betting "underground". Betting cartels in South East Asia are particularly rife and are notorious for making a killing on unusual outcomes. Followers of Premier League football will recall that in the latter part of the 1990s, three top flight matches in London were abandoned due to floodlight failure, which it transpired was influenced by a Malaysian betting sting. Although cricket is not played in Malaysia, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that major bets could have been placed there, although it is equally feasible that bets were placed underground in Pakistan, which being an Islamic country does not recognise gambling as an acceptable pastime.

It is also interesting to note that the whistleblower in this story happened to be a gentleman called Mazhar Majeed, who apart from being a man who seemingly likes a flutter on two flies crawling up a wall also happens to be chairman of Croydon Athletic football club, who play in the Ryman League division one. Seemingly the FA's plan to ensure that all football club owners in this country are passing a fit and proper ownership test is working impeccably. Majeed was shown on camera by the News of the World informing its readers of the precise moments when his plan was carried out to order by Pakistan's bowlers. It is somewhat sickening to think that Majeed could have profited twice from this fiasco, firstly by winning his bet on the contrived timing of the no-balls and secondly by selling his story to the Murdoch corporation to blow the whistle on his windfall.

The world's moralists have poured scorn on the Pakistani cricketers incriminated and have encouraged the cricketing authorities to throw the book at the offenders if they are found guilty of wrongdoing. It is hard to see there being any alternative to a long term ban for the offenders if guilt is proven. However, while it is not the intention of this blog to offer excuses for immoral behaviour, it is worth considering the social, economic and safety factors that could sway a young Pakistani cricketer to risk their career in order to make a short term financial gain.

As the harrowing scenes of the recent Pakistani floods have shown, Pakistan is a poverty stricken country that is vulnerable to natural disaster, as well as being a volatile, socially damaged nation. Unlike in England where most leading cricketers come from affluent and privileged backgrounds, in Pakistan several of its leading players come from slums and shanty towns. The riches that cricketers can make from their profession can help keep a roof over the heads of their families and give them access to clean water. With this in mind, it is not hard to understand how a persuasive, quick talking businessman offering a large sum of a cash in order to overstep a white line on three occasions could prove too great a temptation.

But there is also another consideration to make, which is what could happen if the request was turned down. If the player just told the fixer they wanted no part of their scam and hung up the telephone, do they know who they are dealing with? As we know, money corrupts individuals and it can turn people to violent crime. A rejection of the fixer's advances could potentially not only put the individual player's personal safety in jeopardy, but also that of their family. In an ideal world, the player would just have the strength to say no and report what had happened to the Team Manager or the captain. But in this situation, the captain has been implicated himself, so it is unlikely that a young player like Mohammed Aamir would have been lent a sympathetic ear.

What does not help Pakistan and their players right now is that they are already ostracised by the cricket community. A lot of this is, sadly, of their own making due to previous indiscretions and they currently are unable to play home test matches because of the serious social unrest in their country which means that opposing teams will not risk their safety by touring the country. But it is the ban on Pakistani players from the Indian Premier League that is particularly crippling Pakistan's top players. From what I can see, this ban is effectively a restraint on trade made by the Indian cricketing authorities for no other reason than good, old fashioned prejudice. The IPL hypes itself as the greatest showcase of its sport, featuring all the world's best players but because Pakistan are the noisy neighbour that could end up trashing the party, the authorities have decided to ban them from attending. Given how lucrative the IPL is for a cricketer to carry out six weeks work at about 4 hours a time, it is clear to see how Pakistan's top players are missing out while their counterparts from other countries are cashing in.

Imposing any blanket ban on betting on sporting events is a non-starter and it would end up doing more harm than good, because as was discussed earlier, a lot of the major fixing scandals have occurred from betting cartels in places where gambling is illegal and therefore not properly regulated. What should be looked at in countries where gambling is legal and has clear regulations is the impact of spread betting. Spread betting is where a punter can bet on almost outcome or occurrence in a given sport. This is particularly common in football betting and so could include the number of throw-ins in a match, the number of corners or yellow cards, or the minute in which the first goal was scored.

The problem with spread betting is that it can lead to potential examples of spot fixing, as in the case of the Pakistani no-balls, without having a direct impact on the actual result of the match. I recall a football match between Manchester United and West Ham on the final day of the 1996/97 Premier League season which was effectively a dead rubber as the Red Devils had already won the Premier League title and the Hammers were safe from relegation. At the start of the match, West Ham kicked off and their forward Paul Kitson kicked the ball straight out of play 3 seconds after kick off. There was no team-mate in the vicinity of where the ball went out to whom he could have been intending his pass and so Manchester United were awarded a cheap throw-in, while people at the time speculated that Paul Kitson or an associate could have won a tidy sum on the timing of the first throw-in. One suspects there must have been many more of these types of incident in football and in other sports over the years which have passed without investigation.

Spread betting seems to be a way of nerds making money. Prior to becoming compulsive gamblers, I am imagining that the typical spread better used to turn up their local rail terminus with a notepad and Bic. When you consider that the type of bet that Mr Majeed and his associates was supposedly placed on Pakistan bowlers wasting a delivery with a foot fault at an allotted time in the match, you would think that if anyone was to set foot into Betfred or Ladbrokes in this country wishing to place a similar bet, the precise nature of the bet would arouse suspicion and the customer would be politely advised of where the door was. Where gambling is not properly regulated, unusual betting patterns are not recognised and this only increases the risk of lucrative fixes. This is the best argument for ensuring gambling is legal and stringently regulated.

A sight to put you off your breakfast
They have been re-arranging the furniture again on the Titanic, or at least the sinking ship that is breakfast television. GMTV finally bowed out after 17 years of comfy sofa chat in order to make way for the brave new world of a revolutionary breakfast programme, Daybreak, which is such a diversion from its predecessor that it seems to have retained most of the reporters that had worked on GMTV. The great mystery is that GMTV managed to last 17 years. I mean, I would have thought they would have run out of furniture as I assumed that whenever there was a set change it was because Eamonn Holmes had eaten the upholstery.

Strangely, Daybreak does not seem to differ at all from GMTV except that the rebranded show has decided to go for two marquee names to front the programme. Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley, fresh from their departure from the BBC, find themselves waking the nation up with their mixture of whimsical chat and pouting to the cameras. You decide who provides which service better. Personally, not being the best morning person, I prefer to see a photogenic face when I am coming around and getting my eye in and Chiles' bulldog chewing a wasp features are perhaps better served for evenings as he is likely to scare small children and thereby make sure they go to bed on time.

I found it strange that Daybreak dispensed with the services of the frosty but downright sexy Emma Crosby whilst retaining a place for Kate Garraway, albeit a demotion to their Showbiz Editor, which one would assume also means a demotion in pay. Crosby never seemed to be warmed to by the largely female audience on GMTV which I can only speculate was because they thought Crosby was the kind of girl that wouldn't think twice of stealing their spouse. There was something of a glint in her eye that sugggested mischief, but to me at least, Daybreak have traded down by replacing Crosby with Christine Bleakley, although I am sure Frank Lampard disagrees with me.

So what of Daybreak's dream ticket? Chiles and Bleakley were greater than the sum of their parts on The One Show, but then there was no real expectation on them there. Chiles served a very long apprenticeship at the BBC before coming to the attention of a primetime audience, but his laid back style is far more suited to a BBC audience where no adverts curtail the broadcasts. Chiles is already missed on Match Of The Day 2 which was infinitely more watchable on a Sunday night than Gary Lineker's cliquey gentleman's club version on a Saturday night primarily because of Chiles' bar room banter where he knew exactly what questions the average football supporter would want to ask a football pundit. In his place, the BBC have given his former slot to the abysmal Colin Murray, who looks like a child left in charge of Bournville and only adds to the long list of Radio 1 DJs who make for moronic television presenters.

Chiles could do no wrong at the BBC and as well as being the perfectly laid back choice of host for The One Show and Match of the Day 2, he showed a great gift for observational humour on The Apprentice: You're Fired programme which seemed like a tailor made televisual vehicle for him. With the next series of The Apprentice scheduled before the end of the year, it will be interesting to see who the BBC replace Chiles with on this show. My prediction is that the former Blue Peter presenter Richard Bacon will get the gig, who lacks the gift for self-effacement that Chiles always used to possess.

Now, you will notice I say "used to possess". I cannot help but wonder whether Chiles has started to believe his own hype in recent times. Every time I have seen him since he has defected to ITV, he has seemed to be playing the galleries for laughs, whereas his style once came very naturally. His presentation on ITV's World Cup coverage seemed a little bit forced, spending so much time laughing at North Korean players' warm-up routines that he left little time for the game that was being screened to have any meaningful pre-match analysis. My early impressions from what I have seen of Daybreak so far is that Chiles again seems to be trying to dominate the show with cheap humour. Ironically, it seems he is trying to borrow from the Big Breakfast, a show fronted by his nemesis and the man who forced him out of the BBC, Chris Evans.

Bleakley was always the straightwoman in the Chiles-Bleakley axis on The One Show and it would appear that this is the role that the tangerine perma-tanned Ulsterwoman will be providing on Daybreak. Bleakley seems to be quite content to sit in the background and play second fiddle to Chiles' erratic line of questioning, but if reading the autocue effectively is the key part of your brief, there is no doubt that Bleakley carries out this duty to the best of her ability. Again though, I question whether morning television makes best use of Bleakley's abilities and after 13 years working for the BBC mainly at a regional level, the fast paced nature that fronting a breakfast programme on a commercial network requires does not seem ideally suited to her.

So what of the show that the pair left behind? I have always been intrigued by the success that The One Show has enjoyed because, to my mind, it just seems like a classic example of cheaply assembled, formulaic television. You get the sense that most of the show's budget goes on hiring a high profile guest but the actual content of the programme is confused, not least because the format of the show allows for little time for the guest to contribute anything meaningful. Authors expect to come on to plug their new book, recording artists expect to plug their new CD and comedians expect to plug their tour dates, but perhaps do not expect to be asked for their opinion on the hazards of rising damp or for their favourite type of confection, or to experience the mild inconvenience of sharing a sofa with Gyles Brandreth. One can only conclude that the success of the programme is dependent upon the presenters.

The BBC's choice of replacement presenters for the departing Chiles and Bleakley was certainly a risk, but in a way they are sticking with the tried and tested. Jason Manford provides the comedic angle, although he has played his role quite straight in the early weeks of his involvement on the show. Manford is a decent stand-up comedian, although there are funnier stand-ups of his type, such as Lee Mack who are around on the circuit. You get the impression, however, that Manford who is father to a couple of young children is wanting to cut back on the hard grind of touring and is therefore looking to carve out a career in the mainstream, just as many stand-ups have done before.

Alongside Manford, the BBC have again invaded their regional television pool of talent and have selected Alex Jones, who looks disturbingly like a Welsh identikit version of her predecessor. Jones has looked quite accomplished in her new role to date, although it is worth remembering that she has a number of years of television presenting experience behind her, which means she should be able to guide Manford who is more used to sitting the other side of the coffee table as a guest. The pairing shows early promise but the problem they face is one of association. The One Show is always about the presenters rather than its loose fitting content and for many they will be damned by association. To many, that programme will be remembered as a Chiles-Bleakley vehicle and the new pair will need to take ownership at an early stage in order to retain the core viewers.

Chiles' departure because of the BBC's decision to hire Chris Evans for one night a week was a curious case of throwing your toys out of the pram and one can only conclude that Chiles felt that Evans' presence was a threat to his long term future. I mean, looking at it simplistically, how could Chiles complain about being asked to work one night less a week? But Evans' decision to join The One Show and the BBC's decision to approach him for that programme were both equally curious. Evans hardly needs the money that fronting one 30 minute primetime television show a week would provide him with and he already has plenty on his plate by presenting a 2 and a half hour breakfast show for five days a week. Evans is known in the business for choosing his projects carefully. He mentions in his autobiography how he rejected the chance to present Deal Or No Deal before the show was offered to Noel Edmonds.

Yet, it seems to me that Evans has signed up to present a show that is not the best vehicle to showcase his talents. For starters, The One Show is only on for 30 minutes. There was a spell where the BBC extended the programme to an hour on a Friday night, but it seems they have discontinued with that experiment. In order to get best use out of Evans though, the programme needs to be longer than 30 minutes. You also would think that the brief for the Friday show will need to change. If the show follows the same pattern as the other 4 nights per week and just takes the form of a magazine show discussing items such as health, local history and the arts, I can see Evans very quickly becoming bored. This is a man who once launched people's weekends with a highly energised, risk taking show which had the biggest guests and the best music of its era. If TFI Friday was the perfect warm-up for a Friday night out, then The One Show is the perfect warm-up for an early night. Then again, maybe this is just a telling sign of the ageing process.

With Jonathan Ross having left the BBC in readiness for a defection to ITV next year, the BBC had a spare Friday night entertainments slot available. Ross' show was produced by the former producer of TFI Friday and the show was heavily influential on the format of that programme, which was a successful vehicle for Ross for many years before the fallout from Sachsgate lowered his stock. With this in mind, Evans would have been the perfect host of any replacement show on a Friday night, but as he is older and wiser now, it could have been a cleaner and more family oriented programme than TFI Friday. The One Show occupies the right time slot on a Friday night for this type of show, but the wrong kind of format. Instead, the BBC have decided to move Graham Norton's show to Fridays and have made him the king (or should that be the queen) of Friday nights, when I would say that his show was better suited to the slot it was in already at 10:30 on a Monday night.

The good news for the BBC is that the prototype for a perfect Friday night entertainments show is out there at the moment. The bad news is that ITV have already launched it and it is being hosted by Paul O'Grady. O'Grady's defection from Channel 4, allied with Jonathan Ross' departure from Auntie means that ITV have the services of two of the best light entertainment talents in the country at their disposal, while also have the added bonus of having offloaded the hideous Piers Morgan, who has bizarrely landed a slot presenting Larry King's former chat show in the United States. O'Grady is a great family entertainer with a sharp wit and a true appreciation of his audience and he now has what looks like the right type of programme and time slot on a Friday night with his new live chat show to truly establish himself as one of the televisual elite and leave the BBC trailing in ITV's wake.

My advice to the BBC would be to reduce The One Show as we know it to being a 4 nights per week project, leaving the 7:00 pm slot on Fridays free for a new light entertainment and music extravaganza. Evans should be the man to host the new show and he could perhaps have a younger sidekick to present the show with him. I would leave Alex Jones free to focus on One Show duties and would instead look to someone like Lauren Laverne, who seems free of a lot of the hubris that the BBC's main music presenters have and seems like someone who does not take herself too seriously. The show should go out live and run for an hour at least, maybe even an hour and a half which then would leave time for three guests, plus at least three music acts, as well as some comic segments. The show should loosely set out to be a cross between Top Of The Pops, TFI Friday and Later With Jools Holland.

Music, guests and family entertainment is what Friday primetime viewing calls for, not cowboy builders, strangely shaped vegetables and Dominic Littlewood.


That's your lot for now, or if you are an onion, that's chalot. I hope to be back with some more musings on life's finer and trivial points again soon.

Playlist update

Following on from my last blog post, here is another instalment of the alphabetically influenced playlists I have been listening to on my travels. I am now ploughing through the 'C' tracks.

PLAYLIST #11
Simon & Garfunkel - The Boxer
Thin Lizzy - The Boys Are Back In Town
Don Henley - The Boys Of Summer
Melee - Built To Last
U2 - Bullet The Blue Sky
Razorlight - Burberry Blue Eyes
Ash - Burn Baby Burn
Madonna - Burning Up
Muse - Butterflies & Hurricanes
Corinne Bailey Rae - Butterfly
Red Hot Chili Peppers - By The Way

PLAYLIST #12
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Cabron
Travis - The Cage
Regina Spektor - The Calculation
The Mamas & The Papas - California Dreamin'
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication
Blondie - Call Me
Corinne Bailey Rae - Call Me When You Get This
The Last Shadow Puppets - Calm Like You
The Courteneers - Cameo Brooch
The Beatles - Can't Buy Me Love
Texas - Can't Resist
The Libertines - Can't Stand Me Now
Keane - Can't Stop Now
Mockturtles - Can You Dig It?
Ash - Candy

PLAYLIST #13
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Can't Stop
Paolo Nutini - Candy
Jamiroquai - Canned Heat
Madness - Cardiac Arrest
Prefab Sprout - Cars and Girls
Hard-Fi - Cash Machine
Oasis - Cast No Shadow
The Verve - Catching The Butterfly
Mumford & Sons - The Cave
Kings Of Convenience - Cayman Islands
Madonna - Celebration
Coldplay - Cemeteries Of London
The Last Shadow Puppets - The Chamber
Fleetwood Mac - The Chain

PLAYLIST #14
Mercury Rev - Chains
Oasis - Champagne Supernova
Lightning Seeds - Change
Tears For Fears - Change
David Bowie - Changes
Sheryl Crow - A Change
Paul Weller - The Changing Man
Shed Seven - Chasing Rainbows
The Noisettes - Cheap Kicks
The Fratellis - Chelsea Dagger
Semisonic - Chemistry
Snow Patrol - Chocolate
Deacon Blue - Chocolate Girl

Playlist fun

As I am someone who often spends time travelling on trains as part of getting to and from work, I spend a lot of my journey time listening to music on my iPod and am always looking for inventive ways of selecting the music that I listen to.

I have found that one of the best ways is to play songs alphabetically from the song index, as it means that you get to listen to quite a diverse range of tracks encompassing different genres and eras in one sitting.

Below is a sample of the recent playlists I have listened to recently in this way. Please note that Playlist #9 was an extended playlist that I listened to while travelling to Manchester over the weekend.

PLAYLIST #1
David Bowie - Absolute Beginners
Dolores O'Riordan - Accept Things
Oasis - Acquiesce
Mumford & Sons - After The Storm
The Last Shadow Puppets - The Age Of The Understatement
Bill Withers - Ain't No Sunshine
The Hollies - The Air That I Breathe
Sleeper - Alice In Vain
Simple Minds - Alive & Kicking
Jimi Hendrix - All Along The Watchtower
U2 - All Because Of You
The Kinks - All Day And All Of The Night
Alanis Morissette - All I Really Want

PLAYLIST #2
Puressence - All I Want
The Hours - Ali In The Jungle
Echo & The Bunnymen - All My Colours
Small Faces - All Or Nothing
The Waterboys - All The Things She Gave Me
Simple Minds - All The Things She Said
Sharleen Spiteri - All The Times I Cried
The Killers - All These Things That I've Done
The Farm - All Together Now
Embrace - All You Good Good People
The Beatles - All You Need Is Love

PLAYLIST #3
Prince - Alphabet Street
Jamiroquai - Alright
The Stranglers - Always The Sun
Razorlight - America
RPA & The United Nations Of Sound - America
Simple Minds - The American
Green Day - American Idiot
Lenny Kravitz - American Woman
Talking Heads - And She Was
Garbage - Androgyny
The Killers - Andy, You're A Star
U2 - Angel Of Harlem
Rolling Stones - Angie
Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall
Squeeze - Another Nail In My Heart

PLAYLIST #4
Queen - Another One Bites The Dust
Ladyhawke - Another Runaway
Ryan Adams - Answering Bell
Fyfe Dangerfield - Any Direction
Rolling Stones - Anybody Seen My Baby
Sheryl Crow - Anything But Down
The Kinks - Apeman
Corinne Bailey Rae - Are You Here
RPA & The United Nations Of Sound - Are You Ready
Stevie Wonder - As
Embrace - Ashes
Travis - As You Are
David Bowie - Ashes To Ashes
Muse - Assassin

PLAYLIST #5
Blondie - Atomic
The Noisettes - Atticus
Elbow - An Audience With The Pope
Manic Street Preachers - Australia
The Kinks - Autumn Almanac
Mumford & Sons - Awake My Soul
Fyfe Dangerfield - Awake, Asleep
The Who - Baba O'Riley
Massive Attack - Babel
Teenage Fanclub - Baby Lee
Them - Baby Please Don't Go
AC/DC - Back In Black
The Beatles - Back In The USSR

PLAYLIST #6
Ladyhawke - Back Of The Van
The Pretenders - Back On The Chain Gang
Amy Winehouse - Back To Black
Razorlight - Back To The Start
Michael Jackson - Bad
U2 - Bad
Garbage - Bad Boyfriend
KT Tunstall - Bad Day
Madness - Baggy Trousers
Foo Fighters - Baker Street
Space & Cerys Matthews - The Ballad Of Tom Jones
The Beatles - The Ballad Of John & Yoko
Jack Johnson - Banana Pancakes

PLAYLIST #7
Green Day - Basket Case
Fyfe Dangerfield - Barricades
Charlotte Hatherley - Bastardo
Travis - Battleships
Michael Jackson - Beat It
RPA & The United Nations Of Sound - Beatitudes
The Noisettes - Beat of My Heart
U2 - Beautiful Day
Madonna - Beautiful Stranger
Echo & The Bunnymen - Bed Bugs and Ballyhoo
Bon Jovi - Bed Of Roses
Keane - Bedshaped
Razorlight - Before I Fall To Pieces
The Stone Roses - Begging You

PLAYLIST #8
The Coral - Being Somebody Else
Keane - Bend And Break
Bruce Springsteen - Better Days
Ladyhawke - Better Than Sunday
Jack Johnson - Better Together
Then Jerico - Big Area
Natalie Imbruglia - Big Mistake
The Thrills - Big Sur
The Coral - Bill McCai
Michael Jackson - Billie Jean
Basement Jaxx - Bingo Bango
They Might Be Giants - Birdhouse In Your Soul
Doves - Birds Flew Backwards
Meredith Brooks - Bitch

PLAYLIST #9
The Verve - Bittersweet Symphony
New Order - Bizarre Love Triangle
Doves - Black And White Town
Texas - Black Eyed Boy
KT Tunstall - Black Horse And The Cherry Tree
The White Stripes - Black Math
Michael Jackson - Black Or White
The Last Shadow Puppets - Black Plant
Athlete - Black Swan Song
Muse - Blackout
Garbage - Bleed Like Me
The Killers - Bling (Confession of a King)
Razorlight - Blood For Wild Blood
Regina Spektor - Blue Lips
New Order - Blue Monday
Puddle Of Mudd - Blurry
Kings Of Convenience - Boat Behind
The Dandy Warhols - Bohemian Like You
Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody
The Killers - Bones
RPA & The United Nations Of Sound - Born Again
James - Born Of Frustration
Oasis - Born On A Different Cloud
Kaiser Chiefs - Born To Be A Dancer
Bruce Springsteen - Born To Run
Green Day - Boulevard Of Broken Dreams
The Cure - Boys Don't Cry
Oasis - Boy With The Blues
The Pretenders - Brass In Pocket

PLAYLIST #10
Elbow - The Bones Of You
The Doors - Break On Through
Richard Ashcroft - Break The Night With Colour
Supertramp - Breakfast In America
Queen - Breakthru
U2 - Breathe
Corinne Bailey Rae - Breathless
Texas - Breathless
Bruce Springsteen - Brilliant Disguise
Furniture - Brilliant Mind
Cornershop - Brimful Of Asha
Echo & The Bunnymen - Bring On The Dancing Horses
The Adventures - Broken Land
Paul Weller - Broken Stones
Rolling Stones - Brown Sugar

World Cup dream squad

Well, we are now at the stage where there are just 4 teams left in the 2010 FIFA World Cup. All of the teams that have made it that far have got there through playing some good, attractive football along the way, as well as showing tenacity and commitment at key times and of course, each of have had some lucky breaks. None more so than Uruguay, whose place in the last 4 owed everything to Luis Suarez's spectacular goal-line save in the final minute of extra time against Ghana. Suarez, of course, is a centre forward rather than a goalkeeper and so his instinctive act resulted in him having first use of the showers, but his self-sacrifice also had the desired effect as Uruguay would go on to win a penalty shoot out after Asamoah Gyan's final minute penalty had hit the top of the crossbar.

I was almost tempted to name Suarez as one of the 3 goalkeepers in my ultimate World Cup squad, such has been the generally poor standard of goalkeeping in the World Cup this year. In the end I decided against it. Here for your delectation, however, is my 23 man squad of the best players that have graced the world stage this summer. Please note that I have picked this 23 solely on how they have performed in the World Cup and not on past reputations, performances for their club in the past season or any other criteria. Hence, there are a number of big name absentees from the squad, as well as the complete absence of any Englishmen. Here goes:

GOALKEEPERS
Eduardo (Portugal)
Stelekenburg (Holland)
Kawashima (Japan)

DEFENDERS
Ramos (Spain)
Lahm (Germany)
Lucio (Brazil)
Friedrich (Germany)
Lugano (Uruguay)
Salcido (Mexico)
Coentrao (Portugal)

MIDFIELDERS
Iniesta (Spain)
Schweinsteiger (Germany)
Sneijder (Holland)
Khedira (Germany)
Ozil (Germany)
Boateng (Ghana)
Beausejour (Chile)

FORWARDS
Villa (Spain)
Mueller (Germany)
Higuain (Argentina)
Forlan (Uruguay)
Honda (Japan)
Robinho (Brazil)

The first thing you notice about the squad is the distinct lack of players in the squad I have named that ply their trade in England. In fact, only one player in my squad was still playing their football in the English Premier League last season, Kevin Prince Boateng of Ghana, and he featured in the Portsmouth team that was relegated from the division. Whether this is an indictment on the standard of the Premier League is open to debate, but it is certainly true that a number of the Premier League's star names have failed to light up the tournament. This has not only been true of English marquee names such as Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard, but also of household names representing other countries. Fernando Torres and Robin Van Persie have noticeably looked desperately short of match sharpness, while Cesc Fabregas has featured mainly as a substitute for Spain. A second member of my squad, Brazil's Robinho, did feature for Manchester City last season but had been farmed out on loan back to his native Brazil during the second half of the season. The Brazilian sunshine appeared to enable him to rediscover his best form, on the evidence of the World Cup.

By contrast, Spain's La Liga is well represented in the squad that I named with five of the squad playing their club football in that league. All six Germans that I named in the squad currently play their football in their native Bundesliga, while only two of the squad play in Italy's Serie A, both for European champions Inter Milan. This would again seem to highlight the decline of a league that was once, by common consent, the strongest league in Europe. This status has diminished since the match fixing scandals damaged the purchasing power of the leading lights in the country. The rest of the squad is made up of two players that play in the Netherlands, two that play in Portugal and one each from the national leagues of Turkey, Japan, Russia and Mexico.

Choosing three goalkeepers for this squad was a difficult decision for the simple reason that the standard of goalkeeping in the tournament has been poor. Maybe the erratic movement in the air of the Jhabulani football has affected goalkeepers' confidence, but the fact remains that very few keepers have stood out in the tournament and people will remember some horrific goalkeeping howlers from the 2010 World Cup far more than they will recall the good saves. Even the goalkeepers with the best reputations have suffered. Iker Casillas has looked decidedly shaky for Spain, while Julio Cesar had enjoyed a quiet tournament until he was finally called upon against Holland, where he was completely at fault for the first goal Holland scored in their comeback win.

I feel that the 3 keepers I have selected have largely had the most error free tournaments and have made some important saves too. It is true that one of my keepers, Stelekenburg of Holland, gave away a penalty against Slovakia, but it made no difference to the result and the Dutch custodian had earlier made a couple of vital saves that swung the balance of the match the way of the men in orange. My first choice keeper though is Eduardo of Portugal, who had an excellent match against Spain, ultimately in a losing cause. Had Portugal been calling upon the services of a lesser keeper though, surely Spain would have won by a wider margin. My third keeper is Kawashima whose assured presence between the posts gave the defence in front of him greater confidence and helped Japan advance to the last 16 of the World Cup, conceding only 2 goals during their participation in the tournament.

The defensive positions were trickier to fill given that there have been several right backs that have impressed in the tournament, while have been fewer centre backs and left backs to choose from. In fact, in the end, I have had to leave out probably the best right back in world football, Maicon of Brazil and Inter Milan, despite him scoring one of the goals of the tournament against North Korea. I have chosen Sergio Ramos and Philip Lahm ahead of him because they simply could not be left out, Lahm has been outstanding in his marauding role for the Germans. Ramos' versatility means he can also play at centre back if need be, while Lahm is equally adept playing at left back.

With Ramos included, I have chosen only three specialist centre backs. Arne Friedrich of Germany has been the standout player in that position during the tournament and will surely be a target for major European clubs after the World Cup finishes, especially given that his club side Hertha Berlin were relegated to the German second division at the end of the season. Alongside Friedrich, I have chosen Lucio, who lived up to his reputation as the world's best centre back throughout the competition by being both accomplished in the tackle as well as displaying the usual Brazilian trait of being comfortable in bringing the ball out of defence. In reserve, I have chosen Uruguay's captain Lugano, whose injury early on in Uruguay's quarter-final win against Ghana put them under more pressure than they usually would have expected to face.

In the left back position, some of the marquee names did not live up to their pre-tournament billing with Patrice Evra heading home in disgrace with his French colleagues while life was not much better for Ashley Cole. Only two left backs really impressed me during the tournament and both were players that showed both sides of the modern full back's game, solid defensive tracking and positioning, as well as great athleticism in getting forward to support the attack. Carlos Salcido shone like a beacon in an adventurous but somewhat toothless Mexican side and found himself at the heart of many of his team's finest moments in the World Cup. Meanwhile, young Sporting Lisbon left back Coentrao was one of very few Portuguese players to emerge with any credit from their insipid displays in the World Cup.

Choosing the midfielders for the squad was generally a straightforward task. The team that has had the best midfield in the tournament has been Germany and so the decision to include all three of their regular midfielders, Bastien Schweinsteiger, Mesut Ozil and Sami Khedira, was a no-brainer. Schweinsteiger's determination and drive make him a certain starter while Ozil's ability to get between the lines of midfield and attack and create space for others to drop into mean he too should get a starting berth. My third starter is Wesley Sneijder of Holland, who has shown that a long season in club football need not write off your performance in the World Cup. Sneijder has scored four goals for the Dutch in their run to the semi-finals (albeit one should have been classified as an own goal) but he has had a knack of delivering when it has mattered in the tournament and retained possession well.

In reserve, my midfield options include the aforementioned Khedira, who has not attracted the plaudits that his colleagues Ozil and Schweinsteiger have, but who has been very tidy and efficient in the German midfield and rarely misplaced a pass. I also include Spain's Andres Iniesta, who has brought his club form for Barcelona to the World Cup more than his esteemed team-mate Xavi, who in my opinion has had a slightly disappointing World Cup. Iniesta has shown plenty of energy and played some trademark passes during the tournament, as well as scoring a vital goal against Chile that ensured his country's progress into the knockout stage. I also selected Kevin-Prince Boateng who I felt was the heartbeat of the impressive Ghanaian side and who scored a goal against the United States in the second round. Ghana were missing their best player Michael Essien due to injury and yet it is testament to how Boateng performed that Essien's dynamic qualities were not significantly missed.

The final midfield place was a tricky choice between two wide players, Landon Donovan and Jean Beausejour of Chile. Donovan's three goals for an ordinary USA side were almost reason alone to include him, but I was impressed by Beausejour who I had not previously heard of and his energetic, hard working performances summed up the work ethic of the Chilean team and Beausejour capped a good tournament with the winner against Honduras. So this previously unheralded player is perhaps my wild card pick in the squad, but I think he deserves his chance. As well as Donovan, other midfielders that just missed the cut were Park-Ji-Sung and Park-Chu-Young of South Korea, who both typified the industrious and energetic displays of their country. Had Arjen Robben started all of the matches in the tournament, he may well have been a contender for a place too.

So this leaves us then with the forwards. I have chosen six forwards, mainly because I have decided that my starting XI will play a 4-3-3 formation. Even so, whittling this squad down to just six forwards is tough because several forwards have made their mark during the tournament. In fact, four absentees from my squad, Miroslav Klose, Luis Suarez, Marek Vittek and Luis Fabiano have scored 14 goals between them during the tournament to this point, with Klose still having the potential to add to his tally. Leaving a player of Klose's goalscoring pedigree out of my final squad was not a decision I took lightly, but it says much about the players that did make it.

Let's start with the easy choices. Thomas Mueller at just 20 years of age has been a revelation in this World Cup. The young Bayern Munich starlet had not scored an international goal prior to the World Cup, but he has notched 4 goals in the tournament so far, mainly stationed on the right hand side of an attacking trio for Germany. He will play there too in my notional XI. Stationed on the left of a front three will be David Villa of Spain. While Torres has painfully laboured and looked a mere impostor compared to the player Liverpool supporters see week in, week out during the regular season, Villa has been Spain's talisman and has almost single handedly dragged his country to the semi-finals, showing exactly why Barcelona paid £34 million to acquire his services for next season. One suspects he will mainly operate on the left of a front three for Barcelona next season and he will occupy that self-same position in this team. Through the middle, I have chosen Real Madrid's Argentine striker Gonzalo Higuain who is what I call a "Johnny on the spot" forward, great at anticipating where the ball is going to land in the six yard box and scoring proper goalpoachers' goals. He best demonstrated this in his hat-trick against South Korea, the only hat-trick of this World Cup so far.

So I have chosen three of my forwards, but I still need another three forwards in reserve. Diego Forlan of Uruguay is my first pick. The player who was a figure of fun during his not entirely happy spell at Manchester United has shown that like a good claret, he has got better with age and has been the central figure in getting Uruguay to the World Cup semi-finals for the first time since 1970. When Uruguay have needed inspiration, Forlan has provided it, demonstrating this most when scoring a spectacular free kick against Ghana in the quarter-finals. Forlan's reputation as a proven goalscorer has been re-established at Atletico Madrid, but this World Cup has also shown that he can play in the hole between midfield and attack too and he has been his country's talisman in every sense.

My next pick may be slightly from leftfield given some of the star names I have left out, but Japan's Khisumi Honda just had to be in the squad. He stood out in a Japanese side that played with plenty of adventure and creativity during the World Cup and Honda had a fantastic match against Denmark that assured his country of a last 16 place. He scored a free kick to set Japan on their way (a free kick which at the time was the first that had been scored in the tournament) and then sealed victory by laying the ball on the plate for his strike partner to score the all-important third goal. Honda has made a mark with some good performances in the Champions League for CSKA Moscow and his showings in the 2010 World Cup may make him a target for clubs in the Premier League.

The final pick for my forwards is someone who has already played in the Premier League and was not a roaring success. But despite this, Robinho was arguably Brazil's star performer during the World Cup, scoring twice and also being involved in setting up other goals during the tournament. Robinho is not the type of player that is going to be involved for all 90 minutes of a match and he has a tendency to drift out of games. But he showed enough in the World Cup to show that his return to Brazil has done his game some good and that there is more to him than just being the stereotypical "luxury player". For that reason, he provides cover in the wide forward positions.

So there you have it, there is my 2010 World Cup select squad. There were plenty of possibilities, plenty of maybes and not-quites. But in the end, that was the squad I settled upon. It is always a subject of conjecture and so I would be interested to hear some alternative suggestions. From the 23 man squad I named though, here is my first choice starting XI. Note to Fabio, I found a way of picking this team without playing 4-4-2:

Eduardo

Lahm
Lucio
Friedrich
Salcido

Ozil
Sneijder
Schweinsteiger

Mueller
Higuain
Villa

SUBSTITUTES: Stelekenburg, Kawashima, Ramos, Lugano, Coentrao, Khedira, Boateng, Beausejour, Iniesta, Forlan, Honda, Robinho

The big E

Greetings, blog readers. Well, it looks as though spring is here at last with the smell of cut grass, the tulips in full bloom and ah yes, that funny light in the sky. Nothing like a few rays of sunshine to see the beautiful people of this fair isle home into view and discard a layer of clothing. Then again, it is probably that fatalistic British attitude of making hay while, you know the rest, in the knowledge that when summer is here it will be accompanied by the typical seasonal weather of torrential rain.

So what's been going on in the world? Well, we've had Easter when I trust you all remembered the true meaning of the occasion. That is to indulge a little on ovular shaped confectionery and forget about work for a few days! Apart from the aforementioned E word, it was another E word that dominated the week's media coverage and this will be the focus of this latest blog.

I am of course referring to the calling of the General Election, as approved by the Queen earlier this week. Over the coming weeks, all three party leaders will be travelling the length of the country kissing babies, reading to small children and watching other children draw pictures of them, seemingly oblivious to the fact that their friends for the day are in no position to influence the election as they have yet to reach the age of majority. And if that doesn't work, the leaders can always wheel out their secret weapons, namely their wives (so not that secret then) to vouch for their good character, faults and all.

None of these photo opportunities, however, will really tell the wider electorate much about what they really need to know, which is what leader stands for, what their party's priorities will be and what solutions they have to the current doom and gloom enveloping the nation, courtesy of the usual media scare mongering. Politicians are famously evasive when it comes to being open about their policies and principles, but at a time when there is so much apathy and distrust of their profession, this surely should be the determining factor in who wins the election rather than who wears the smartest suit, has the highest IQ or is covered in the least sweat after their morning run.

So, my friends, I have found salvation in the form of a section on the BBC Election 2010 website which outlines what each party's policies and approaches are on the core matters that will influence voters' decision making on polling day. I have copied and pasted the main points below, along with my own take on which party seems to be most on the money in each case. So let's get down to business.

Crime
Conservative policy: Replace police authorities with a directly-elected police commissioner; strengthen stop and search powers to tackle knife crime; give police the power to publicly identify offenders; change the law so that anyone acting "reasonably" to stop a crime or apprehend a criminal is not arrested or prosecuted; allow the police to use instant sanctions to deal with anti-social behaviour; reduce the burden of stop and search procedures; increase prison capacity above Labour’s plans, in order to scrap the early release scheme; allow courts to specify minimum and maximum sentences for certain offenders.

Labour: Highlight 40% drop in overall crime since 1997; mandatory assessment of every parent of every child aged 10-15 who is under consideration for an Asbo; automatic parenting orders on those whose teenage children breach an Asbo; tougher sentences for knife crime; portable weapon scanners for the police; highlight 15,000 increase in police numbers since 1997; pledge to protect frontline police from budget cuts in 2011-2013; highlight schemes to reduce police bureaucracy; oppose elected police authorities or commissioners; add 15,000 prison places by 2014 through the UK–s largest ever prison-building programme.

Liberal Democrats: Increase police numbers by 3,000 over five years; scrap identity card scheme; make police authorities directly elected, with increased powers; annual fitness tests for police officers; replace form-filling with new technology; create a National Crime Reduction Agency to spread best practice through the force; review police officers’ terms and conditions; seek advice from Law Commission and Plain English Campaign to make paperwork more simple.

My opinion: The Conservative approach is very much remaining true to its core values of being tough on crime and on the causes of crime. At a time when the media reports that Britain is engulfed by serious social meltdown and where victims' rights are often overlooked, the Tories' realise that the promise of stricter enforcement where laws have been transgressed is an obvious vote winner. There are certain elements of their policy that sounds good in theory and I would not object to courts being granted permission to specify minimum and maximum sentences for certain "category A" offences. An increase in prison capacity would also aid the Conservative hard line approach on offending, although the question of how it would fund this increase is not immediately apparent. Law and order is invariably one of the Tories' stronger areas and for those that favour the Draconian approach to punishing offenders rather than trying to rehabilitate them, you can see that this manifesto will tick a few boxes for them.

The Labour policy by comparison seems quite a weak and tired blueprint and I would be concerned by their staunch highlighting of the overall crime rate being greatly reduced. Mark Twain was infamously distrusting of statistics and there is much evidence to suggest that crime statistics in this country are not a true reflection of the reality. There are plenty of examples of unreported crime, particularly where the crime was of a violent nature, due to the fear of retribution. There are also examples of petty crime that the police are seemingly powerless to prevent from turning into more serious incidents of crime, particularly where anti-social behavioural episodes are concerned. The parental measures concerning children with ASBOs is worthy of respect up to a point, but there is an element of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted to their implementation.

Of the three parties, I find myself most aligned to the Liberal Democrat model. They have been clear in their opposition to the flawed national identity card scheme, which offers little prevention to terrorism but which is an intrusion into people's civil liberties. The rest of their policies may on the surface appear slightly wishy-washy, but the proposed change in governance so far as police authorities are concerned would hopefully see an understanding that with greater powers comes greater responsibility. The public feel more assured if police are able to patrol the streets rather than be sitting in an office and so the measures that the Lib Dems mention which are designed to save time filling in forms should enable that to happen.
VERDICT: The Lib Dems appear to offer the best package.

Crime
Conservative policy: Increase health spending in real terms over a parliament; replace ’process’ targets, such as maximum time before seeing a cancer specialist, with ’outcome’ targets, such as number of people dying from cancer; more management freedom for NHS providers; put performance data online; allow patients to choose any healthcare provider that meets NHS standards; implement a ’payment for results’ system throughout NHS; link GPs’ pay to results; cut the cost of NHS administration by a third; create an independent NHS board; end mixed-sex wards; increase the number of single rooms in hospitals; allow retirees to protect their homes from being sold to fund residential care costs by paying a one-off premium of £8,000 at retirement.

Labour: Protect frontline NHS from spending cuts; ensure all people who suspect they have cancer get test results within one week; guarantee cancer patients will see a specialist within two weeks of diagnosis; offer everyone between 40 and 74 free, five-yearly NHS health check; guarantee NHS patients the right to wait no longer than 18 weeks from the moment of GP referral to hospital treatment; establish a "National Care Service" for elderly and vulnerable people, with funding arrangements decided by a Commission; provide free personal care indefinitely for those in highest need; meet elderly people's care costs after they have spent two years in residential care.

Liberal Democrats: Replace Strategic Health Authorities with democratically elected local health boards with power to prevent hospital closures; reduce number of health targets; introduce "patient contracts" specifying what patients can expect from NHS; make it easier to switch GP; allow patients to register at more than one practice; reform NHS dental contracts to encourage dentists back into the NHS; extend access to end-of-life services and hospices; more cost-effective purchasing of drugs, including greater use of generic drugs; payments for over-65s who require personal care such as help with dressing based on need, not ability to pay.

My opinion: While I think that it is right that Conservatives' should move away from the process targets that are mentioned, I'm not sure that their favoured 'outcome' is necessarily going to be a helpful exercise, or that it will provide an accurate indication of competency. Obviously, the mortality rate is the only way of showing how effective the health service is in carrying out its work, but not all deaths are as a result of the role of the health service. Admittedly if a correct diagnosis is not made at an early stage, or if a response is not fast enough, then these are examples of standards falling short. But there are certain uncontrollables too. If a patient themself does not seek out medical advice at an early stage, then there are occasions when a condition may be caught too late in the day. The Tories' manifesto seems obsessed by results and while I can understand this to a certain degree, I feel uneasy about people's livelihoods being affected by "results" that could be beyond their control. The Tories do win some points for identifying administration costs as a saving, although the drawback to this will mean that less admin staff will mean that frontline staff will have to spend more time on admin duties when they could be supporting patients.

There are some elements of Labour's policy that make sense and I certainly applaud their proposals concerning cancer care. Pretty much everyone in this country has been affected by this wretched disease at some point during their life and if any steps can be taken, albeit small, to minimise death and suffering from this scourge then this action should be commended. Their policies in supporting the most vulnerable people in society is also something that I admire. I feel that marginalised groups, particularly those with mental health related problems come low down on the Tories' list of priorities and yet many of the people that use health services in this country fall into that category. I'd rather the health service is driven by people instead of targets, and although the health service has not been without blemish under Labour's watch, their commitment to improving it is evident.

The Lib Dems have a few interesting ideas without really hitting anyone with a killer policy on health. I do certainly support their attitude in reducing health targets, which appears to be the polar opposite to the Conservative attitude on the matter. It is also good to see that the party would take a stand in supporting elderly people from poor backgrounds in making sure they could access appropriate personal care. There are certainly numerous examples of people that cannot access their family network for such care and who often die in squalor. The idea of a "patient contract" sounds like it has been borrowed from other industries and while it sounds good in theory, in reality what a patient should expect from the NHS is quite simple. Receive top quality care in order to aid their recovery as swiftly as possible. That doesn't really require a piece of paper for the message to be conveyed, does it?
VERDICT: The Conservatives target driven attitude could potentially do more harm to the NHS, rather than make it more accountable for its performance. Despite its problems under the Labour administration, the present governing party appear to understand its failings and realise that using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut is not necessary.

Education
Conservative: Allow charities, parent and teacher groups, and co-operatives to establish Academies – schools which are state funded but independent of local authority control; allow every existing school – including primaries – to seek Academy status; create a "Pupil Premium", giving more money to schools that teach the poorest children; raise teacher training entry requirements; allow state schools to offer the same international exams as private schools; make it easier for teachers to use "reasonable force" to deal with violence; give head teachers power to pay "good" teachers more; scrap exclusions’ appeals process; create 10,000 extra university places in 2010 and 100,000 additional apprenticeships and training places a year; give bonuses for early repayment of student loans.

Labour: Protect schools budget from spending cuts; continue roll-out of Academies independent of local authority control; introduce "Local Pupil Premium", forcing local authorities to pass on extra funding to schools teaching the poorest pupils; encourage universities to set Academies up as well as private organisations; guarantee extra maths and English tuition for all 7 to 11 year olds who fall behind; encourage comprehensive schools to pool budgets in school "chains", allowing stronger schools to raise standards in weaker schools; introduce school "report cards", which would rate schools on a wide range of data, including exam performance, behaviour and parents' and children's views of a school; consider ways to widen access to universities, while retaining tuition fees; create 20,000 extra undergraduate university places in 2010-11 and 400,000 apprenticeships by 2020; introduce a renewable "licence to teach" for teachers; guarantee a place in education or training for all 16 and 17 year olds.

Lib Dems: Replace Academies with "Sponsor Managed Schools", to be run by educational charities and private providers, but under local authority control, not Whitehall; provide £2.5bn for a "Pupil Premium" for schools teaching the poorest pupils; replace National Curriculum with a Minimum Curriculum Entitlement to allow teachers more flexibility; create a General Diploma made up of GCSEs, A-Levels and vocational qualifications; create an Education Standards Authority to monitor school standards independent of government; increase the apprenticeship numbers, and places on university and vocational higher education courses; scrap university tuition fees over six years.

My opinion: There are a few gimmicks in the Conservative education policy, which generally seem as though they will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots in the education system. The "Academy" idea seems like a way of challenging authority but for no discernible reason. The "Pupil Premium" proposal would seem to go somewhat against the grain so far as the general Tory education policy is concerned, but on the surface, it would seem like a welcome move. Schools with the least affluent pupils will not improve without suitable investment and so this seems like a sensible way of supporting this. There are 1 or 2 good ideas in amongst a sea of impractical drivel. On the plus side, the extra 100,000 apprenticeships and allowing teachers to use reasonable force where it is necessary. Not every child that leaves school can go to university, or indeed wants to and so apprenticeships offer a meaningful and rewarding alternative. Likewise, no-one would dispute that teachers should be allowed to defend themselves when they are in physical danger from a teenager that is bigger and stronger than them.

There are definite flaws in the Conservative education manifesto though. Raising teaching entry qualifications at a time when attracting people to the profession is on the downturn does not seem like a necessary move. Teachers are usually not incompetent because of their qualifications but because of their inward looking attitude. A more sensible idea would be for teachers to go on a "refresher" after being in the job for a certain period of time. Giving teachers power to pay "good" teachers more could surely create a divisive dynamic in the staff room and it's also questionable how this could work in legislation. If 2 teachers are teaching the same subject and with the same duties, with neither being head of their department, then surely by law they have to be paid the same salary? Scrapping an exclusions appeal process sounds like dangerous ground to be covering as that sends out the message that authority is always right even when it's wrong. I also feel that the Tories, in keeping with other parties, should be focusing less on increasing university intake when the clearance system in universities is already too relaxed, resulting in courses being oversubscribed and also impacting on the drop-out rate.

Labour's commitment to apprenticeships is encouraging, and they look like they are setting a realistic figure of 400,000 more apprenticeships by 2020. As with the Tories, they support the Local Pupil Premium scheme, which no doubt means there will be squabbles as to who thought up the idea first and who copied the other. Of the rest of their ideas, there are not too many striking, stand-out policies other than the pledge for all 16 and 17 year olds to be guaranteed a place in education or training. I've heard previously that Labour wish for all children to compulsorily remain in education until 18 and I don't think this is a good idea as there are some pupils better served in finding their way in the world at 16 rather than remaining in school and disrupting the more adult dynamic that is common in sixth form. Overall, the Labour education manifesto appears rather dull and anaemic in its content.

Perhaps because they realise that they have only a minimal chance of bringing their plans into fruition, the Liberal Democrats have come up with some refreshing and innovative proposals in their manifesto. I think it is sensible for their proposed "Sponsor Managed Schools" to be managed at local authority level rather than by national Government and this should ensure that the type of education being delivered is meeting local requirements and demands. The abolition of the National Curriculum is not something that the 2 main parties have really discussed before, but I do know that some teachers feel they are constrained by the Curriculum's requirements and so if there is an alternative that give a teacher more creative freedom which is able to lead to more productive lessons, then I think this would be a bold, but undeniably a positive move. Having an authority that is independent of Government that is set up to review school standards also seems like a good idea, as this should mean that there is less potential for failings to be covered up. I applaud the Lib Dems' commitment to more vocational courses, as these test the transferrable skills that employers are looking for more than traditional, exam driven qualifications do. Whilst I have reservations about expanding the university network too far, I feel that the Lib Dems would help get more students into university on the basis of academic ability rather than wealth, and so again, they score well.
VERDICT: The Lib Dems' education strategy, at least on paper, appears innovative and radical, and is focused around nurturing students at all stages of their development, while giving teachers more creative freedom. In the cold light of day, if they did somehow get into power then bringing these ideas to fruition could be the tough part, but their ideas seem more robust than the tired strategies listed by the other 2 main parties.

Family
Conservative: Let parents share maternity leave; recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system by 2015; ensure that the tax credit system does not penalise couples by doubling the Working Tax Credit for couples who live together; focus SureStart on the neediest families; provide 4,200 more Sure Start health visitors; support free nursery care for pre-school children, from a range of private and public providers; extend the right to request flexible working to every parent with a child under the age of 18.

Labour: Extend free nursery places for 3-4 year-olds from 12.5 hours to 15 hours; provide two extra outreach workers for 1,500 SureStart community support centres in most disadvantaged areas; provide nursery places for 20,000 two-year-olds in the most deprived areas by 2012; fund two parenting advisers in every local authority; provide £73 million to help low income families access childcare; oppose the reintroduction of the married couples tax allowance; continue to provide nine months of paid maternity leave, but no extension to 12 months; give parents of one- and two-year-olds an extra £4 a week in Child Tax Credit for each child from 2012.

Lib Dems: Allow parents to share maternity leave; extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, not just parents and carers; fix the payments of tax credits for six months at a time so that payments are stable and predictable.
My opinion: This is not really a subject that will massively influence how I vote in the election, but for those with children, I can see that there are potential carrots offered up by each party. The Conservatives favour the traditional family model and this is emphasised in their policies, which they no doubt feel will be an antidote to the current "broken Britain". The tax credit system is likely to be appealing to families where both partners work. The right to extend flexible working to all parents is also going to be popular, although I can see that this will be challenging to put into practice in certain professions.

The Labour Party attitude would seem somewhat at odds with the more traditionalist stance of the Conservatives given that they are opposed to the reintroduction of the married couples' tax allowance. Their approach is geared to the times in which we live. As much as marriage remains a sacred institution to many, it no longer is the be-all and end-all for others, particularly those that have experienced at first hand the failures post-ceremonial vows. The keeping of the maternity pay at 9 months rather than increasing to 12 is something that I would expect to be under review at a later date, as and when the economic picture improves.

The Lib Dems seem to follow similar lines, except that they are wanting flexible working arrangements to be extended to all employees, regardless of whether they have dependants. This sounds reasonable in principle, but it is questionable as to whether it is entirely necessary other than for purposes of equality. What benefit ultimately is there to an employer in letting its single men work from home in the evening just so they can pop to the gym in the afternoon? Allowing maternity care to be shared seems a reasonable idea, even if one of the partners would normally be offering paternity care instead.
VERDICT: No-one really stands out on this issue and there are a few similarities on policies. For people that favour the traditional family model, there is more on offer from the Tories, whilst Labour seems to be striking a balance between what is helpful to families and what is helpful to the economy.


Time has beaten me tonight and there are several more issues which are likely to be key factors in the election. I hope to examine these in more detail in my next blog and hopefully this can educate us all, myself included, as to who would be the best party to cast a vote for on 6 May.