Well hello again everyone. You might wonder what has kept me so long. It is over 3 months since I last posted in this parish. Well, like the MPs and the school teachers, I decided to have a little break from writing over the summer, although my period of writer's block has lingered on for longer than I had anticipated. Speaking of summer, did we have one? I think we should all make a beeline for the Met Office and demand a refund. Those horrible depressing days of darkness at 4:00 pm are sadly only just around the corner now. And then, whisper it quietly, the dreaded C word is looming onto the horizon.
Since I was last here, I have celebrated another birthday, although I'm not sure that reaching the grand age of 31 merits a street party. Those foot loose and fancy free days of all night drinking and boisterous behaviour have now been replaced with thoughts of mortgages and sheds. Well, fortunately, I can at least put those thoughts on hold for a little while longer given that I rent my first floor flat and do not have a garden to maintain, let alone have space to accommodate a shed.
Given my long hiatus from my keyboard, there have been so many talking points that have emerged in the past 3 months from the worlds of current affairs, entertainment, business and sport. So let's not waste any further time, here's my take on some of the burning hot potatoes that people will talking about around the water cooler or the photocopier at the moment.
Joe's take on....
Royal Mail imploding
Royal Mail's current malaise is not a sudden problem, it has been a troubled organisation for several years. First things first, I am not an advocate of industrial action and in terms of demonstrating employee value, refusing to work is only likely to intensify the already contemptuous relationship that exists between your average postie and the man in the suit that runs the mail service in this country.
What needs to be considered though is how has Royal Mail got itself into such a terrible state, why is it that there are so many postmen and women that are out of love with their job and feel completely marginalised? I think as always there is an element of people finding it difficult to cope with change, which is not surprising. Technological advancement has been so rapid in the past 10 years or so and there will be some senior postmen who will have been getting up at the crack of dawn and risking getting their fingers ripped off by some overexcited Yorkshire Terrier for possibly 10 or 20 years in some cases.
But I think the other factor is that the frontline workers, be they postmen doing their rounds or the man driving a van with the optional extra of a black and white cat, do not trust or respect some of the top management in Royal Mail because they have not worked their way up through the ranks to become top management and so they are not equipped to understand the challenges and nuances of a postman's lot from any personal experience as they have not donned a light blue short sleeved shirt or worn the baggy grey shorts in the summer months in a professional capacity.
This can be shown at the very top of the chain. Royal Mail's Chief Executive Adam Crozier was not a postman in a previous career, he was in fact previously the head of the Football Association that installed Sven Goran Eriksson as England manager and has also previously worked for the advertising giants Saatchi and Saatchi. Mr Crozier's credentials as a decision maker are respectable, but he is not in a position to empathise with the shop floor. Top managers have also made some bad and expensive decisions, not least the costly and ultimately failed rebranding of the service to be called Consignia earlier this decade.
But beyond the very top management, there is also a situation where many workers can progress through Royal Mail without ever gaining frontline experience. As is the case in the rail sector, Royal Mail has a graduate employment scheme and often newly honoured graduates find themselves on a fast track system where they can end up in very senior positions in a matter of years. I have no truck with graduates, hey I was one myself once! Nonetheless, it is human nature that some of the more hardened, cynical postal workers will be far from happy to see some upstart coming in to a position of responsibility without having worked their way up in the conventional way of having been a postman first and a manager later, especially when they are given a position of power which directly affects the workers.
At management level, I do not think it is unjust to say that some of the decision makers have got complacent and thought that people would always be dependent on Royal Mail's service. The truth is that Royal Mail is not the only carrier any more, albeit it is the only conventional option for distributing personal post. So if delivery targets were not being met, some heads could possibly roll, but it would be pretty small fry because the non-business customer couldn't take their custom elsewhere. Except that the volume of personal mail delivery has decreased in recent times as people tend to embrace technology. People no longer pay their phone bill by sending a cheque in the post, they can set up a direct debit. Other payments can be made via Paypal or online banking. There's even an alternative to sending celebration cards in the form an online animated e-card. And sending a letter in the post to an old friend happens far less given the myriad of options that there are for keeping in contact on a more impersonal level in a hectic schedule, such as Facebook, text messaging or an e-mail.
It came as no surprise to me this week that Amazon have considered severing their ties with Royal Mail to deliver their goods. In fact I have a personal experience of Royal Mail's shortcomings with regards to delivering Amazon goods. Almost three weeks ago, I ordered 2 books from Amazon which should have arrived 2 or 3 days later. I am still awaiting these goods to arrive. Having contacted Amazon, I was advised that Amazon do not have a way of tracking items that are being delivered by Royal Mail. Therefore, my books could be sat in some pigeonhole at a Royal Mail sorting office somewhere in deepest Surrey and no-one will be any the wiser.
I have placed orders with Amazon on numerous occasions over the years and can honestly say that I've never previously encountered any difficulty in receiving their goods. The delivery has always been prompt and the items have been present and correct. Amazon only use Royal Mail for delivering some of their items, particularly books. When I ordered an iPod from Amazon earlier this summer for example, it was delivered by another courier company that Amazon use and in fact, the delivery turnaround time was excellent.
If Royal Mail cannot guarantee reliability to its business customers and their end users and there is no way of tracking progress of items they are delivering, then it stands to reason that more businesses will choose other carriers to distribute their mail. Given that there are proposed strikes during arguably the busiest time of the year for the mail services, in the build-up to Christmas, it is only natural that businesses will look at other options to ensure their post is delivered without delay. For the average Joe or Joanna that is posting their Christmas cards, they may just have to don their mittens and hand deliver the ones to recipients that are within walking distance.
Is this the beginning of the end for Royal Mail? Well, I think that is dramatic. I expect there to be a change of Government next year and I would expect any Conservative to get tough with any public services that are not performing. Royal Mail being privatised has been discussed for some time, but the Tories have always been the party of privatisation and deregulation. This could have good and bad effects. It could lead to stronger leadership, but equally it will probably also mean greater distance and contempt between postal workers and managers that have been appointed from big business. Certainly though, Royal Mail has to buck up its ideas at all layers of its organisation otherwise it could find itself playing out a slow, painful death.
The Sun endorsing the Conservative Party
This development seemed to raise quite a few eyebrows although I've got to be honest, I felt it was a matter of when and not if The Sun would change its allegiances.
It has to be remembered that The Sun is regarded as the common man's (and woman's) newspaper and therefore it likes to pass itself off as the mouthpiece of the public at large and its tone and opinion is likely to be reflective of the current public mood. At the moment, the average man or woman with any passing interest in politics is disillusioned with the Labour Government and particularly unhappy with Gordon Brown's lack of dynamic leadership at a time when unemployment is high and the economy is in catastrophic debt. As the Conservative Party are the only credible alternatives to Labour to govern the country, it stands to reason that the public and The Sun will back David Cameron and the Conservatives.
This is not necessarily a ringing endorsement of David Cameron's leadership, but more a scathing illustration of how apathetic the public are with the present Government and politics in general, especially in the light of the expenses scandal. If the public were given a straight choice of Gordon Brown and the Honey Monster to be leader of the country next spring, it is likely that the latter would get the nod. Cameron himself still has much to prove, especially if his rather empty and anaemic speech at last week's Tory Party conference was anything to go by. The Tories are deliberately playing their cards close to their chest and not divulging what their policies are and how they will solve Britain's problems. This is partly because they do not want Labour to steal their ideas and pass them off as their own, but also because they know some of their policies which involve inevitable cutbacks will prove unpopular.
The Conservatives' "tough times call for tough measures" attitude is likely to match the mood of the public at the moment and as people grow more self-serving and insular during hard times, they are likely to win the day. But the honeymoon period won't last forever. The Sun have always tended to be a newspaper that leans to the right. Even in its years of backing Labour, there were many key issues on which The Sun's editorial was more aligned with Tory policy rather than Labour, particularly on issues such as Europe, asylum and law and order. With the present dissatisfaction economically, socially and politically towards the Government and the Prime Minister, the Conservatives' hardline attitude was always likely to sway The Sun back into their arms.
From Labour's point of view, The Sun's defection will be a blow but not one that will cause them too many sleepless nights. The Sun may be the newspaper with the highest circulation, but overall newspaper circulation has been greatly diminished since the halcyon days of the 1980s and early 1990s when the power of the tabloids was at an all time high with the circulation war that existed at the time. The advent of 24 hour rolling news and newspapers' websites allowing free access to the news means that less people have the time or inclination to read a daily newspaper from back to front. No doubt The Sun will still proclaim that it was responsible for the Conservatives' ascent to power coming next spring, but the Labour horse had run lame before The Sun changed saddles. Labour insiders would be more worried if their traditional newspaper The Mirror decided to change its allegiance.
Chris Evans becoming the Radio 2 breakfast show host
Chris Evans seems to be one of those media personalities that really polarises opinion, a real Marmite figure. There are those that proclaim him a genius of his craft, that connects with his audience and energises them. Then there are those who regard him as a laddish, egomaniac who is wrapped up in his own inflated sense of self-worth.
There is no doubt that Evans has shown traits in the past that have made him enemies. However, I have always been a fan of the ginger cropped one and think that not only was he the logical heir apparent to fill Wogan's size elevens, but he was also the only choice. Evans knows the breakfast audience better than anybody, having presided over the Radio 1 breakfast show for 3 years, Virgin Radio's breakfast show for 2 years and having also presented the Big Breakfast on Channel 4 during that programme's most successful times. Breakfast radio is about energising your audience, waking them up and getting them ready for the challenges of the day ahead. Evans's early morning banter, bar room style games and musical tastes are exactly what is called for at that time of the day.
The BBC knew Evans was the man they wanted to replace Wogan eventually when they brought him back to radio over 2 years ago in the drivetime slot. Evans's stock at the time had dropped to an all time low. His previous excesses and inflated ego meant that he lost everything, his reputation, his friends and his career. For a short time, Evans was selling jewellery on a stall in Covent Garden in order to make ends meet. Because Evans has experienced losing everything, it gives him more perspective now and the mistakes he made in his younger days are unlikely to be repeated. It is worth remembering that Evans is now 43 years old, is married and has a young child. His life is back on track and so he is now more mellow.
Of course, Evans won't be to the liking of some of Radio 2's more traditional listeners who I expect would much rather have the comfy cardigan wearing Ken Bruce in the breakfast slot. If Chris Evans's high octane, energising approach is the radio equivalent of Red Bull, then Bruce's more gentle, soothing style of broadcasting is a nice cup of coco. Bruce's present slot of following the Breakfast Show is exactly the right time slot for him. Radio 2 has changed in recent years and particularly has changed with regards to its music policy. There are many listeners to the network under the age of 30 now, which would have been inconceivable in the past, and this has led to Radio 2 becoming the most listened to station in the country.
The only real challenger to Evans as Wogan's replacement would have been Jonathan Ross. But, quite apart from the fact that I don't think Wossy would have wanted to give up the school run five days a week in order to present the show, any aspirations he may have had to present the Breakfast Show will have been cut down to size in the aftermath of the Andrew Sachs affair last year which caused Radio 2 much damage. It was noticeable how it was Evans who rallied the troops in the days that followed the media hysteria when that story broke and it is possible that this did not do his cause any harm.
The Chris Evans that people will remember from radio in the 1990s has matured like a good wine. Sure, his show can still sometimes be edgy and it is possible that some female listeners could still find some aspects of his show a touch too blokey for their tastes. But Evans is a winner and he is very savvy when it comes to knowing what his audience's demands are. He knows he has a tough act to follow but he also has the confidence to fill Wogan's shoes and not be intimidated or be overly concerned if people are critical about him initially. Chris Moyles' audience share could well be under threat.
Golf and rugby sevens being added to the Olympic roster and Rio De Janeiro being awarded the 2016 games
I always tend to believe that there should be two criteria that should be applied to determine whether a sport should be included in the Olympics. Firstly, is the Olympic competition the pinnacle of that sport? Secondly, will the competition be won by the best competitor in the field? To my mind, golf fails both of these tests.
I would not pretend that golf is one of my favourite sports. I can watch the Ryder Cup and sometimes will follow the Masters or the Open Championship and I respect the fact that golf does throw up some tests that other sports do not, such as competing against the elements. But golf is hardly an athletic sport, as witnessing Colin Montgomerie's chest and waistline will be testament to. Added to which, could the Olympic golf competition ever possibly be the blue riband event in that sport? I really don't think it could be, for a professional golfer all that matters is winning one of the four majors or playing in the Ryder Cup.
Of course, the argument that you could throw up at this stage is if you take this line of thought, what business do tennis, football or basketball have being in the Olympics, given that the Olympic tournament is barely a footnote in the schedules for those respective sports. My answer to this would be that they should not be in the Olympics either because they are not the pinnacle of their sport. Tennis players care far more for winning Wimbledon or the US Open, while the Olympic football tournament is an irrelevance in an already packed calendar. The Olympics started out as the ultimate amateur sporting event and while it would be naive to expect these corinthian values to be upheld as purely in modern, monetarily dictated times, it does not seem right that super rich, super successful sportsmen like Roger Federer or Shaquille O'Neal should be competing on that stage.
To my mind, the Olympics are about sports that you do not see on television very often outside of the four year cycle of the Olympics. Swimming, weightlifting, rowing, hockey, cycling, volleyball, badminton, these are the sports that the Olympics are really all about and in every single one of those sports, an Olympic gold is the absolute pinnacle of achievement in their sport. Of course, above all, the Olympics are about the track and field programme and the annals of sporting history have filled with the achievements and sob stories on the track and on the green expanse in Olympic arenas.
The only way I can see golf being compatible with an Olympic competition would be if it were strictly for amateur golfers, much as boxing in the Olympics is only for those yet to turn professional. This would sit more comfortably, but even so, I still do not think golf is a good fit for the Olympics because it is not necessarily won by the best player. You only need to look at golf's majors in recent years to see that there is no sport more open to big upsets and unlikely winners who have their 15 minutes of fame only to disappear into oblivion. I suppose those that like a gallant underdog story would be happy to see golf included on this basis, but I prefer sport to be a test of technical supremacy and because of golf's tendency to be something of a lottery, I feel it should not be included in the Olympics.
As far as rugby sevens is concerned, I can see more reasoning for its inclusion given that there is not a major alternative competition for that form of rugby. There is the Hong Kong sevens tournament, but I would expect an Olympic gold to be regarded as a greater achievement and it would give 7-a-side rugby a greater profile than it presently receives. On that basis, I am in favour of its inclusion.
Concerning the choice of Rio as the host city of 2016, this was pleasing to see. South America has not previously hosted an Olympic Games in its 120 years of existence and is therefore the only continent that has not previously hosted the Games. A summer games in Brazil will throw up a carnival atmosphere full of glamour and colour and I am sure Rio will prove to be an inspired choice. There may some concerns about where Rio will find the money to host the Games and whether it is ethical for so much money to be committed to the short term gain of hosting the Olympics when much poverty remains in some of Rio's less photographed areas. These concerns are valid, but the Olympic carnival coming to town should at least create much needed job opportunities.
Much was made of Chicago's failure to secure the Games after being heavily backed by Barack Obama and whether this was an indictment on Obama. The answer to this is no. Chicago did not get awarded the Olympics because it was one of the weaker bids and the United States have already hosted the Olympics twice since 1980. It is good to see some equality and South America has waited long enough for its chance and so on this occasion, Rio getting the nod appears the right decision.
BNP being invited to appear on Question Time
I am a great believer in free speech and I think that it is perfectly acceptable for even the crankiest and craziest of believers to have a platform for voicing their opinions, so long as their opinions are not breaking any laws.
Where the BNP are concerned, the controversial and bigoted nature of their party line is such that it could be argued that some of their opinions come very close to breaking laws of racial intolerance and hatred. However, I am pleased that they will be allowed a chance to speak on Question Time because it will actually give the public a chance to see what their policies actually are, or more to the point, to see how their distinct lack of coherent policies are papered over by self-pity and vitriolic bile.
Because the BNP only receive a very small amount of airtime because of the extreme nature of their views, this in some ways makes them more appealing as a protest party to some of the electorate that feel that the more conventional political parties have failed to serve anyone other than themselves. The trouble is that because the BNP does not get a place at a public forum very often, people may feel that their views are actually tapping into the public mood and that they could be possible knights in shining armour in making tough decisions to make Britain great again.
By allowing the BNP on to Question Time and giving their leader Nick Griffin opportunity to expand on his party's thoughts on Britain and their possible solutions to its ills, I think this can only be good in properly educating anyone that is tempted to vote for them that what they actually stand for is backward and repulsive and that their views have no place in a forward thinking world.
Oasis splitting up
The only surprise in this announcement was that Oasis actually lasted this long! Surviving fifteen years and seven studio albums of sibling rivalry and in-fighting has in fact been quite a sterling achievement.
I have been a fan of Oasis's right from their beginnings and What's The Story Morning Glory was in fact the first album I ever remember buying. I have all of their studio albums and although I would say that they never consistently matched the quality of their first two albums in the decade or so that followed, Oasis did continue to produce some good material well into the naughties. Their final studio album, Dig Out Your Soul, I felt was a slight disappointment and perhaps not the most fitting way to bow out. Nonetheless, they will remain relevant in 20 years time as their songs will still be played on the radio and they will continue to influence new Indie bands just as their influence is evident in some of today's big bands, such as the Arctic Monkeys and Kasabian, both in terms of the music and the attitude.
Oasis have in the past been accused of being a derivative band that borrowed much from The Beatles. There is some truth in this, but it is a rather simplistic school of thought. Yes, The Beatles certainly influenced Oasis's music, but listen to their back catalogue carefully, and they were far from their only influence. Acts such as the Rolling Stones, Kinks, T-Rex, Stone Roses, The Jam, Sex Pistols and even Nirvana have also had some influence on the Oasis sound over the years. Music is often about being influenced by your predecessors' sounds but enhancing them for a modern audience. Oasis did this better than anyone during the 1990s, although they perhaps lost some of their relevance and mojo after the turn of the millennium.
Noel and Liam Gallagher do not strike me as the kind of men who have much place for regrets in their life, but if they did, they may perhaps wish that they had been able to break America in the way that The Beatles managed to in the 1960s, and indeed, how Coldplay have managed to in recent years. The Americans never quite took to Oasis's bravado and that didn't help their cause. However, I feel that there is something quintessentially British about Noel Gallagher's songwriting and the anthemic nature of Oasis's sound which perhaps the American audience never quite got. Oasis are probably the biggest stadium rock crowd pleasers to emerge from this country since Queen and perhaps it is not coincidence that Queen also never made huge waves in the United States, despite being huge in other far out places.
The brothers Gallagher will now surely go their separate ways and embark on different careers. Although Oasis are often regarded as primarily Noel's project, it is worth remembering that he was the last person to join the original line-up and in actual fact, it was Liam that formed the band under their original name of The Rain. So, by rights, Liam could carry on with the band but without Noel on songwriting duties. On recent albums, some songwriting has been shared out and so Noel's departure in this respect need not be terminal. However, there would be some complications in terms of performing Oasis's back catalogue live given that the public would demand to hear the classics, all of which were written by Noel. Any future Oasis material without Noel would lack credibility in the same way that Guns N' Roses's return without Slash just was not the same.
Noel's career is far from over and I expect a solo album or two will materialise before very long. I would expect Noel's solo sound to follow a similar pattern to that of his mentor and friend, Paul Weller. Weller was an angry young man in The Jam but the style and sound of his solo career has been a much more mellow affair, reflecting his advancing in years. The Oasis songs on which Noel has provided lead vocals, such as The Masterplan, Little By Little and Half the World Away have tended to be more gentle strum-along affairs with well considered lyrics and I would expect more of the same from his solo projects, although like Weller, he may feel more willing to experiment with other sounds that would not have sounded right on an Oasis record.
Liam meanwhile I can see taking a backseat from music for a while. He is heavily involved in producing his own brand of clothing and I think the end of the line for Oasis could well result in an expansion in his clothing lines. Maybe one day Liam and Noel will patch things up and Oasis could provide the great comeback tour of 2015, but I would not go betting the family silver on that eventuality. Whatever happens in the future, you cannot ignore Oasis's past and their legacy to British music will live on through radio airplay and the next generation of bands who will be influenced by their music and their swagger. To borrow the title of my favourite Oasis song, I believe they will live forever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment