A winter warmer

Hello everyone.

I trust you have been enjoying the snow and ice of the past couple of weeks, either indulging in some well earned duvet days or guiding the most reliable method of transport during the cold snap, namely the sledge. Unfortunately some of us live close enough to our employer that we were not excused work on the grounds of inclemency. And I hope that none you experienced the kind of cold hearted, wicked crime that was reported by one Kent woman, who called emergency services to report the theft of her snowman, crafted by her own fair hands. As if this act of cruel opportunism was not enough, the woman suffered the further indignity of having her telephone call passed on to the media to highlight the waste on emergency resources. Give the woman a carrot. And maybe some coal.

Anyway, time to digest some of the other news stories of recent times.

Twenty-two unwise men
So, Thursday 2 December saw the result that the country had long been waiting for. Or, at least it did if the country concerned was Qatar. Football's world governing body FIFA announced the results of the Cypriot jury, sorry the results from its Executive Committee and the results spelt bad news for the English delegates and media corps. Predictably, the English reaction to a defeat was measured and philosophical, with every tabloid paper exhibiting the kind of imperialist, xenophobic stereotypes one hoped had been wiped out a generation ago.

As the wreckage of England's latest humiliating defeat was surveyed, several post-mortems were carried out as to how exactly England achieved just 2 votes from FIFA's assembled motley crew of 22 men, with one of those votes being cast by England's own representative. Many pointed to the Panorama documentary that the BBC screened just three days before the vote, while others suggested that it was because England's bid presentation was so polished, that FIFA decided to look to a land of Eastern promise, oil and gold reserves to stage the tournament instead.

First things first here. England actually reached the last four in the bidding rights for staging the 2018 competition. On recent form, that is actually progress for England, given that the last time they reached the semis in the World Cup, Nessun Dorma was all the rage and Paul Gascoigne had got too closely acquainted with Onion Bhajis. Maybe if future World Cup bids are decided by an in-house paper, scissors, stone competition, then football coming home will be a shoo-in.

Wisecracking aside, there is no point in applying logic to FIFA's decision making powers. Just as you are advised not to reason with terrorists, there is no point in arriving at a meaningful or logical conclusion in how FIFA makes its decisions, other than to say that the country's approval rating with FIFA appears to be even lower than its approval rating with Eurovision. What we can at least be certain of is that FIFA's decision to award the World Cup to Russia was not made for pure footballing reasons. FIFA made clear that the English delegation made the best technical bid and the strongest presentation, and also identified that the two countries that posed the greatest risk in hosting the tournaments in 2018 and 2022 were Russia and Qatar, the two countries that ended up winning the day. Just like the girl that is always drawn to the bad boys, FIFA clearly like a challenge.

From what I have read and seen of the bidding process, I certainly felt that England presented the strongest business case for hosting the 2018 World Cup. The beautiful game has a rich heritage and tradition within England, with the world's oldest professional club found within these shores and the oldest cup competition being played here too. But in the here and now, England also has the infrastructure and the transport links in place to host such a grand scale sporting event, as well as having most of its stadia already built and spread throughout a wide area of the country. Sure, the cynics will scoff at the transport point and say that the trains will struggle at the first sign of snow or rain, but the point is that in usual circumstances, you can usually travel from one major city at one end of the country to a major city at the other end within a matter of two or three hours. The sport's place within the DNA of English society, factored in with the transport links and purpose-built stadia all appeared to add up to the most robust package in the field.

The English party's attitude to presenting on match day to FIFA's suited and booted seasoned internationals also seemed to tick all the boxes of how to win friends and influence people. The English entourage was strong with more household names than Proctor & Gamble in the room. Their posse was headed up by three wise men comprising the man in charge of the country, a future king of the country, plus two toffs who support Aston Villa. Or I may have got part of that wrong.

Whatever one felt about 'Just Call Me Dave' Cameron devoting three days of his time to supporting the bid by being present in Zurich at a time when there are other pressing concerns closer to home like a faltering economy, student mutiny and Ann Widdecombe's continued presence in Strictly Come Dancing to deal with, it certainly makes a strong statement of intent about the country's seriousness in wanting to stage the tournament. But maybe where messrs Cameron, Beckham and Wales could only detect the sweet smell of success, the FIFA delegates present detected the not so pleasant smell of desperation.

It is worth reiterating what I said at the top that I do not think FIFA's decisions in awarding the tournament in either 2018 or 2022 were made on football related grounds. If they were, then England and Australia appeared to be the strongest candidates for each of those tournaments, with both countries being passionate sporting hotbeds and having purpose-built stadia already in place. However, England secured just 2 votes for 2018, while Australia managed only 1 for 2022.

England's shortage of support in FIFA's corridors of power goes much further back beyond the recent Panorama expose and there is a long historical context, one which sees the same levels of mutual contempt in place as is seen between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Although founded in 1903, FIFA was not graced by English presence until 1950, presumably on the grounds that the old school tie brigade that were in charge of the English FA did not think FIFA had anything to teach them. By this stage, England's absence from FIFA meant they missed out in participating in any of the first 3 World Cup tournaments, participating for the Jules Rimet Trophy.

Relations between England and the world's governing body have always been a little strained, but this has been particularly apparent during the reign of current FIFA President, Sepp Blatter, a man whose innovative ideas for his favourite sport have been unsurpassed given that he once suggested that women footballers should be encouraged to remove their shirts when scoring a goal, while he is continually opposed to introducing any sensible form of goal-line technology. Blatter, however, has a vice like grip on FIFA and it was his words that allegedly saw FIFA's other delegates withdrawing their support for England.

There are those that would argue that England's lack of love in FIFA corridors is due to their perceived arrogance and conceit and that banging on about having invented the game irritates FIFA. There is some truth in this and we have to accept that just because football has a strong heritage in this country, our country does not have the monopoly on heritage, and therefore has no divine right to host the World Cup. As an island nation, we are sometimes insular when it comes to appreciating what other countries bring to the table. However, England’s lack of friends in Geneva’s marbled halls is also due to their lack of dexterity in the dark arts of schmoozing and brown nosing.

The dynamics in FIFA appear to share a number of similarities to those that are in place in a Masonic lodge. Much like the Masons, FIFA’s Executive Committee consists exclusively of middle aged men who appreciate a fine dine and a good wine (and maybe a Bryan Adams summer), especially if they are not picking up the tab. The other parallel that is shared with the Masons is that FIFA tend to operate a closed shop. To be influential in decision making, you need to sit within the inner circle. England currently appear to be situated nearer to the Arctic Circle than the inner circle. In Masonic parlance, England’s World Cup bid was black-balled.

The timing of the Panorama documentary that made allegations of vote rigging and other corrupt practices within FIFA was far from ideal from a bidding point of view. There were even some accusations of the BBC being ‘unpatriotic’ in some quarters. But, surely it is the media’s responsibility to uncover any supposed wrongdoing and corruption in order to name and shame the culprits concerned, rather than to sweep it under the carpet. If the BBC did not report this, they would not be fulfilling their journalistic integrity. And it made more sense for them to air the programme three days before the bid rather than six months before or after because the items it uncovered would have a more powerful impact on its audience, with the programme still fresh in the minds of the viewers when Sepp Blatter was on envelope opening duties in Zurich.

The double edged sword to this, of course, is that certain FIFA delegates may have spent their Monday night watching the documentary and choking on their olives, and even those that found alternative recreation will have been aware of the allegations raised. Against this backdrop, you would have hoped that the evidence that the BBC was fresh, relevant and damning, meaning that the FIFA bigwigs were caught red handed, banged to rights. Sadly, however, the Panorama documentary just covered old ground and the total sum of their investigation was to refer to incidents that occurred ten years earlier and which had been reported before. The journalist reporting his findings, a Scotsman by the name of Andrew Jennings so happened to be someone that had been banned from FIFA's premises because of previous accusations he had made. In terms of hard hitting journalism, this was a long way removed from The Cook Report. So much for not sacrificing journalistic integrity, this was as lame an effort as England's showing in South Africa in the summer from a point-scoring journalist with a grudge. The irony of a Scotsman possibly being responsible for England's World Cup bid failing is richer than Roman Abramovich, Bill Gates and Sir Fred Goodwin all being covered in Black Forest Gateau.

This is not to say that Jennings' fundamental point was wrong, of course. This point being that FIFA are corruptible and accountable only to themselves. If anything, the results of the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup tournaments demonstrates this, as does the bidding process itself. First of all, it does not take a quantum physicist or a brain surgeon to understand that by putting two tournaments up for tender in one foul swoop that this increases the potential for corruptibility because it allows for the kind of back-scratching and horsetrading between delegates where deals are done to suit both parties. So for example, Qatari delegate says to Russian delegate 'I will vote for Russia to host the tournament so long as you vote for us to host it in 2022'. The banker on Deal Or No Deal never drives such an easy bargain as that. FIFA's banqueting halls in the days leading up to the big decision will have bore an uncanny similarity to the Deal Or No Deal studio, except for the absence of a self-important, bearded middle aged man wearing a Hawaiian shirt. Or maybe not. Even the man who gave the world Mr Blobby could not surely be as unpopular with the English public as Sepp Blatter.

But just as bad as the blatant opportunity for deal-making that putting two tournaments up for tender in one block presented was the actual configuring of the FIFA Executive Committee that voted on the destination of the World Cups in 2018 and 2022. The 22 men responsible for determining the England bid's fate were made up of gentlemen who came from countries with a vested interest, namely countries that were bidding for the World Cup in either 2018 and 2022. Now, in most professional circles, this is what would generally be regarded as a conflict of interest. How can you have a Committee adjudicating on a decision where they have their own interests being represented? This is akin to a company carrying out a job interview where the head of the interview panel is the drinking companion of one of the interviewees. The interviewer would be obliged to declare an interest in this situation and would have to withdraw from the panel. Why does the same principle not apply to FIFA's management of its Executive Committee? Oh, silly me, I forgot what a self-serving, unaccountable organisation FIFA are.

But it should not be this way. How difficult can it be to appoint the Executive Committee for a term in office once it becomes apparent who the bidding parties will be for the next World Cup that is up for tender? So, for example, let's imagine that the 2026 World Cup attracts bids from England, France, Japan, the United States, plus a joint bid from Bolivia and Venezuela. Once these bids have been confirmed, FIFA can determine that its Executive Committee that decides on the destination of the World Cup hosting sixteen years thus must not be made up of representatives from any of these six countries. As my right honourable friend Alexander the Meerkat would say, 'Simples!'. There are still over 190 other nations that have a FIFA membership from whom the delegation can be drawn and the representatives from these countries can then be free to focus their energies on championing their country's bid. The simplicity of this concept is there for all to see, but the odds of FIFA ever implementing it are about the same as the ones you would get on Frankie Boyle becoming a UN diplomat, or Russell Brand becoming a monk.

So the die has been cast and the decisions made for 2018 and 2022 and where does that leave everybody? Well, Russia is one of the world's great footballing nations and one of the notable absentees from the list of top nations that have hitherto hosted international football's showpiece event. There is no reason why a country that gave the footballing world Lev Yashin, Andrei Arshavin, and some of the great Spartak Moscow sides should not have the World Cup experience in their neighbourhood. There are undoubtedly going to be challenges though, and Russia's ability to cope with these challenges will determine whether it is the right time for it to be staging a major sporting event. Several of Russia's World Cup venues have yet to be built and one hopes that lessons will be learnt from the debacle of this year's Commonwealth Games in Delhi, where parts of the stadium were still being completed days before the competition started. Fortunately for Russia, Poland is a neighbouring country and so obtaining builders should not be problem in an emergency, with Russia's oil oligarchs well equipped to pay above the minimum wage.

There are two greater issues for Russia to address, however. Firstly is its transport infrastructure. Russia is a vast country and whereas if the World Cup had been held in England then this would enable anyone to travel to one part of the country to another within a couple of hours, then the greater expanse of the largest country in the world by land area means a greater reliance on internal flights in order for players, officials and journalists to get from one venue to another. The concern that this need raises is the recent safety record among Russian air carriers, and most notably, its national carrier Aeroflot. Traditionally, Aeroflot used to be the butt of bar-room jokes in the same way that Skoda used to attract one liners about the quality of its cars. But whereas the input of German engineering has meant that Skoda jokes no longer ring true, concerns persist about Aeroflot and there have been several air crashes in Russia within the past five years which have resulted in fatality. The pressures of hosting a major event will only test Russia's aviation resources further and so clearly things will need to improve within the next seven and a half years, otherwise the potential for a tragedy is prominent, unless people decide that the Trans-Siberian Express is their preferred method of transport.

The social attitudes of some backward thinking natives is also a problem that cannot be swept under the carpet. The West Bromwich Albion forward Peter Odemwingie is testament to this. Odemwingie is a Nigerian international of Uzbek birth and prior to carrying out his day job in the West Midlands, he previously turned out for Lokomotiv Moscow, one of several notable club sides that play in the Russian capital. Despite a respectable return of 21 goals in 75 appearances, it appears that a section of Lokomotiv supporters were not disappointed by Odemwingie's departure to the land of Balti Pie and Lenny Henry, given that in Lokomotiv's next match following his move, a number of supporters unfurled a banner saying 'Thanks West Brom', accompanied by the image of a banana. Such attitudes are fortunately few and far between in the United Kingdom these days outside of the BNP's garden party, but this is sadly far from an isolated example of racial intolerance in Russia, although they are far from the only country where social understanding is backward. In the past few months there have been examples of racist chanting and behaviour at football matches in Italy, Serbia and Poland. This is particularly concerning in the latter's case given that they will be co-hosting the European Championships in less than 2 years from now.

The cynical side of me thinks, however, that Russia's social attitudes and one-dimensional thinking will not have a major bearing on the 2018 tournament for one very simple reason. Not many Russians will be in a position where they can afford to attend World Cup matches. A significant percentage of the tickets for World Cups end up in the hands of the corporates. Attending World Cup matches is a beany for the employees of the sponsors, the Coca-Colas, Fuji Films and Philips of this world, a modern day team building alternative to an afternoon on the golf course or orienteering in the nearest forest. Whether the corporates find attending Russia an enticing prospect is another matter. What is more likely than racist chanting blighting the World Cup in eight years time is that mouth-watering international contests will get played out in front of rows of empty seats, particularly in the more remote venues staging matches.

The potential for empty seats is only going to be increased four years later when the World Cup bandwagon moves on to Qatar. As a country situated in the middle of the Arabian desert, it will come as no surprise that the consumption of alcohol in Qatar is illegal and any contravention of the local laws will result in a permanent and painful forfeit for the consumer. While this might appear like a good strategy for keeping football hooligans away from the tournament, it will also deter a lot of genuine football supporters as well as the corporately entitled from travelling, given that having ready and available access to suitable liquids before and after the match is an essential part of the matchday experience, particularly for supporters travelling from the lager belt countries in central Europe.

There is then the interesting dilemma of whether to stage the tournament in the Qatari summer or the Qatari winter. What a quandary to weigh up! If the World Cup is staged during the summer months, as is tradition, then the temperature outside the stadia will be unbearably hot, possibly in excess of 40 degrees Celsius, even if the stadia themselves happen to be specially air conditioned. Alternatively, FIFA's masterplan to combat this meterological inconvenience would be to stage the tournament in the middle of winter, probably in January. A curious idea given that this would mean playing the tournament midway through most Western European countries' domestic season. One imagines that the Arsenal and Manchester United managers of 2022 will be somewhat overcome by apoplectic rage at the prospect of their players being taken away for a month halfway through a season to accommodate a World Cup. Already club managers are unhappy when they lose African players for a month every two years when the African Cup of Nations is held at a time when the local weather is not oppressive.

Then there is the issue of legacy. It is widely believed that FIFA like to make their decisions on World Cup hosts based upon where staging the tournament can leave lasting social benefits to the hosts and allow the country develop as a footballing nation. This is a somewhat flawed notion, however, in the case of Qatar given that most of the purpose-built stadia that are being constructed specifically to stage the World Cup are going to be demolished soon after the 2022 tournament's end. Far from leaving a legacy, this smacks of desperate short-termism. Would it not make sense to retain the stadia in order to stage further international sporting events? The World Club Championship perhaps, or even staging other sports such as the World Athletics Championships. Building a stadium to be used for just one month only to then bulldoze it straight afterwards seems like a criminal waste, especially at a time when much of the world is experiencing austerity.

As with the Olympics, it is only right that the World Cup is taken around the world so that all figurative corners of the globe are able to have opportunity to sample a sport that provides a common link and language across borders, races and religions. Football's ability to transcend these multinational boundaries is real and can unite otherwise disparate groups of people. But this does not mean that the tournament hosts should be exempt from meeting the practicalities of hosting a major event, and ultimately the decision on where to stage an event should be reached purely on the basis of which country presents the strongest business case and has the most robust package in place. Given that England and Australia already have the majority of their stadia built and have comparatively advanced transport, amenities and communications already in place, their cases appeared to be the strongest. So their shortage of friends when the votes were cast tells you that FIFA's decisions are concluded through political bargaining far more than they are through meritocracy.

This is frustrating and disappointing, but there is little that can be done. England are paying for years of being the white sheep amongst the brown-nosers and back-slappers at the top table, but they cannot just quit FIFA and keep their own counsel. Sure, there are countries that do not have FIFA membership, but playing regular matches against Greenland, Vatican City and Western Sahara is not going to be enough of a sufficiently lucrative prospect to keep the public interested in international football. England supporters want to see their team play against France, Germany, Brazil and Argentina, and these countries are never going to resign from FIFA. Whatever way you look at it, FIFA hold all the cards because however much they treat England like some chewing gum on the sole of the Governor's shoe, England still need FIFA far more than FIFA need England.


Chris fits the bill as Apprentice
This blog is usually suitably under-whelmed by the excess column inches and media output devoted to televisual reality shows. Not least because, in whose universe do they deem that such shows are reality? There is, however, one glorious exception in this genre, namely the BBC's self-proclaimed 'job interview from hell', The Apprentice. This weekend sees the climax of the sixth series of the unofficial idiot's-guide-of-how-not-to-conduct-business and has seen something of a return to form for the programme, after a couple of years where the format was becoming increasingly stale and the candidates were becoming less credible.

This series, however, has been one of the more memorable ones. I would say that the alumni of series 2 or series 3 probably remain the best and most entertaining to date, but this year's crop are certainly an improvement on many of the candidates that participated in series 4 and 5. That is not to say that the series has been devoid of the deluded and the dim-witted types that make the series an entertainment programme rather than a business educational supplement. But there has been a fine balance between the moments of stupidity and hilarity and also the moments of genuine inspiration. The clever editing can, of course, paint a caricature highlighting the moments of weakness demonstrated by the candidates and ignoring some of the hard graft which may be commendable, but which does not make for entertaining television. But on reflection, it certainly seems as though the calibre of candidates in this latest series has gone up a notch from some of the previous terms.

As with every series of the programme, there was a pantomime villain and this year it was the turn of Isle of Man telecoms entrepreneur, Stuart Baggs. Baggs set a record this year by being the youngest ever candidate to enter the senior version of the show, participating at the age of just 21. Baggs demonstrated throughout the process that he was an alpha male of questionable principles, but setting up a business at the age of 18 showed that he was no entrepreneurial lightweight and this will no doubt have made Lord Sugar identify certain parallels with his own formative years, given that he started his business from scratch at the age of 16. The problem for Lord Sugar you sense is that because his own rags to riches story is so well documented, this results in a lot of candidates trying to pass themselves as his second coming, whereas they are only pale imitators.

Nonetheless, the fruits of Baggs' labours which he claimed was without any financial assistance from his parents certainly seemed to strike a chord with the bearded peer and it resulted in a rare misjudgement from the chief firer. In week 10, an empassioned board room speech from Baggs in which he informed Sugar of how he came to set up his business at an early age saw Baggs defy the odds and retain his place in the competition for the interview stage, resulting in the firing of Liz Locke, the attractive Brummie who had been the favourite to gain employment within the AMS empire until that point. Sugar thought that Baggs' maverick nature and technical expertise would provide him with something that none of the candidates had, but it would only take a week for him to realise the error of his ways.

In week 11, the traditional interview roasting took place from Lord Sugar's quartet of troubleshooting Rottweilers, including the welcome return of former aide Margaret Mountford. As well as Margaret's return, the ankle-biter in chief amongst Sugar's cross examiners was his one-time global troubleshooter Claude Littner, a man seemingly with such limited personality that its totality could be stored in a tin of fish paste. And on the subject of fish, Littner provided the memorable line of 'You're not a big fish, you're not even a fish' in response to messr Baggs' assertion that he was a major player in the telecoms business. Further revelations about the questionable status of Baggs' telecoms licence that he had advertised on his CV culminated in a boardroom explosion from Sugar amid the realisation that he had fired the wrong candidate the previous week, resulting in Baggs' sudden but overdue expulsion from the competition.

Baggs' extended stay and Miss Locke's premature departure aside, it has to be said that Lord Sugar's finger has been on the pulse throughout this series with pretty much all of his other firings being spot on and the other four candidates rightly making the interview stage. His decision on the two candidates to put through to the final was also a close call, but on reflection, it would seem like he made the correct decisions again. Property developer Jamie Lester marked himself down as an early favourite to win the candidacy, but his performance seemed to regress as the series wore on while some of his competitors saw their trajectory head in the other direction. Lester is certainly a strong negotiator and salesman, as one would expect from someone who honed their skills in the real estate business, but he seemed to lose his focus at times.

Then there was Joanne Riley, a 25 year old proprietor of a cleaning business from Leicester. Riley, by her own admission, was no scholar and her lack of business acumen became evident during the interview process when she struggled to identify Lord Sugar's main business interests. Riley, however, did show how The Apprentice can be a force for good for its participating candidates by improving significantly throughout the duration of the process. She started out as mouthy and over-opinionated and rather defensive due to her insecurities about her own background. But she also demonstrated that she was nobody's fool and seemed to work hard to take on board any feedback she received from the board. Riley was not a strong enough candidate to win the apprenticeship, but she left with a different perspective on her career, with Lord Sugar advising her to persist with growing her own business.

So to the final two. As quite often seems to be the case with The Apprentice, the two finalists are polar opposites. One male, one female. One born with a silver spoon in their mouth, the other born with a plastic spoon in theirs. One a twenty-something with only nine months work experience since graduating from university. The other a thirty-something with ten years experience of climbing the corporate ladder having left school with no qualifications. In a lot of ways this final particularly reminds me of the series 3 final that was contested between posh graduate Simon Ambrose and the Irish Account Manager with a difficult upbringing, Kristina Grimes. On that occasion it was Ambrose that prevailed.

Assuming the Ambrose role this time is posh graduate Chris Bates, while up against him assuming the Kristina Grimes role is Stella English, who to an untrained eye bears a slight resemblance to a young Amanda Redman, the star of geriatric detective series, New Tricks. Bates' place in the final looked like a long shot in the early stages of the process given that he was on the losing team in five out of the first seven tasks, being brought back into the boardroom and into the line of fire on more than one occasion. This point was not lost on Lord Sugar, who advised the Politics graduate to buck his ideas up. Bates certainly seemed to do this and he will have particularly impressed Sugar on the week 10 tourism task where he took a calculated risk in his negotiation with the London Tourist Centre, given them a 20 per cent cut of all revenue his team made, much to his colleagues' disgust. That this was a gamble was unquestionable and had it gone wrong, Bates could well have ended up getting fired, but Sugar himself will know that entrepreneurship is about taking risks to be successful and this risk was gloriously successful. It was a smart move on his part and he has demonstrated in previous tasks that he has a good business brain and does not shirk his responsibility when it comes to the hard sell either.

Bates' obvious weakness is his monotonous presentational style which has been highlighted more than once during the process, but this in itself is not going to hold him back. The winner two years ago, Lee McQueen, was an even worse presenter but that did not prevent him from being hired. The clue is in the title of the programme, it is to be expected that there are some items that will need to be ironed out in the event of employment being taken up.

His opponent in the final task, Stella English, has consistently performed well throughout the course of the series, despite having to fend off accusations of being wooden, cold and corporate. Some of these accusations are natural and have a grain of truth about them. The Londoner's background as an employee of a Japanese investment bank for some ten years means that she is used to an institutionalised, corporate culture. But it is also worth highlighting that her employers have effectively created roles for her, thereby recognising her importance and abilities. She has also shown a certain steeliness about her during the process and it would appear that she has kept a certain amount of distance between herself and her competitors. But, as she acknowledged herself, she is not there to win friends, she is there because she is ambitious and wants to gain employment in the Sugar empire.

It is worth remembering how well Stella did when managing a team of disorganised, in-fighting men during the second week of the process and her task-focused approach produced the desired result with her team winning the task. But she has also been equally adept at working hard when she has not been Team Leader, coming out of her natural comfort zone when being a tour guide in week 10 and also acting as a beachwear model in one of the other tasks. 'Taking one for the team' as one of the other candidates put it does not appear to be a problem for her if it is a means to an end. Apart from being typecast as robotic, she does not appear to have many points of weakness other than not being the most natural salesperson or negotiator. This was demonstrated in the purchasing task where she bought items for a higher price because she did not barter effectively, which led to her team losing the task.

The final task sees both candidates having to pitch an idea for a new brand of alcoholic drink, targetting adults aged over 25. Given that one of the candidates is called Stella, this seems like an unfair advantage! On the surface, it seems like there is little to choose between the two candidates and the performance on the final task could end up having a bearing on who wins the whole shooting match. However, I can see Chris being a better fit for Sugar's organisation, which is why I make him favourite to win. He is that much younger than Stella and has a comparatively short business career behind him, whereas Stella has worked under one organisational culture for ten years and will require more of an adjustment to then acclimatise to Sugar's enterprises, which will be far removed from the corporate setup that Stella will have experienced working in a bank.

Chris will be prone to mistakes and will sometimes need to be reined in from his instincts, but he has shown that he is able to produce results when working independently. The only question mark that Sugar may have is whether he would be using this as a career stepping stone, seeing him move on within a year to something more lucrative. But I would not think this would deter Sugar from hiring him, and for much the same reason as Simon Ambrose won the third series, I expect this vintage sixth series to close with Chris Bates taking the honours.


Music on television striking a low note
Flicking the channels one Sunday night recently, I stumbled across the Strictly Come Dancing results show, featuring the television presenter I like to call the bookcase, Claudia Winkleman. This epithet I have provided is not because I imagine Eve Pollard's doe-eyed daughter to be an avid user of a bibliotheque, but more that her presentational style is decidedly, well, wooden. But I digress. What was more disturbing than Claudia's apparent difficulty at even uttering her own name without referring to the autocue was the choice of musical guest as the antipasta to the succulent main course of Anne Widdecombe finally being asked to leave the dancefloor. Given that such light entertainment, family oriented shows usually see musical interludes from such accomplished music legends as James Blunt, Michael Buble and Jamie Cullum, I had to do a double take when I realised who was performing. Surely not it couldn't be. I must be hallucinating. This must be my imagination. But no, no it really is them. There in the flesh, on Sunday primetime television on a dancing programme performing their new single was.....THE MANIC STREET PREACHERS!!!

This was no wind-up, this was for real. The Welsh dragons on the drumkit was the telltale sign that here on a family light entertainment show designed for the mainstream was a band who once wanted to start revolutions and rebellions and tear down the walls held up by the mainstream and their MOR preferences. How can it be that this band of musical revolutionaries, who have done more to put the voice of protest into musical form than arguably any other British band of the past two decades, found themselves resorting to plugging their new single in the company of Eastenders cast-offs and professional dancers, and to a watching television audience consisting in no small number of people from the blue rinse brigade?

On one level, this development was just indicative of the ageing process. John Lydon was once uncouth simply for the sake of keeping down with the kids. These days his uncouthness is presented on demand for the purposes of product placement in exchange for a pile of paper with the head of the woman he once condemned in punk prose. Paul Weller was once an angry young man that challenged the elite with such anthemic attacks on the privileged classes as 'Eton Rifles' but in later years, his sound has become more soothing and mellow, much like the musical equivalent of Horlicks. The Manics have been in the business for 20 years as men and boys and messrs Bradfield and Wire are now at a stage where Saga holidays in the Brecon Beacons are looming on the horizon, while jolly boys' outings to Llandudno are becoming a hazy memory.

But there was a more practical reason for the Manics' purposeful selling out to the mainstream. Music television as a platform is a very limited and disjointed medium in the current climate. Back in the day, it was much more simple than this. Band would get airplay on Radio 1 and would get in the charts. Band would then put themselves out in the public consciousness further by performing on Top Of The Pops. These days, competition for places in the charts is fiercer than ever due to the vast amount of choice available through downloading media, be it iTunes, Spotify or whoever else you care to mention. It only takes an advertising campaign which uses a certain song to get that back into the public's consciousness and it can re-enter the charts. Failing that, some out-of-tune wannabe that attracts the support of Louis Walsh can commit falsetto homicide on the X-Factor and propel the original, previously long forgotten track back into the charts. And then at this time of year, there is always the seasonal effect that sees people getting merry on the sherry and coming under the influence while in control of iTunes, resulting in the wholesale purchase of Christmas novelty songs.

Nowadays, the range of choice in terms of radio stations mean that promoting a new single via that medium is that much harder simply because people's listening pleasures are much more diverse, whereas once upon a time music radio's audience would essentially be drawn from two national stations, plus one commercial radio station in the local area. Getting the requisite attention in an ever more competitive music chart has become much harder and this has meant that bands and musicians have had to make themselves available to appear in settings that they would never have dreamt as being an option even five years ago.

The lack of specialist music platforms available to recording artists on terrestrial television is a rather disturbing development at present and it means that children and teenagers in particular are being deprived the opportunity of seeing many of the genuine stars of recorded music, while being subjected to the artificial side of the music industry. Think back a decade and television had several music oriented programmes, most notably with Top of the Pops, but also including the ITV Chart Show, TFI Friday, Friday Night With Jonathan Ross and Later with Jools Holland. Jools remains to this day and his show is fantastic at managing bring together artists and transcending traditional music genres, but the problem is that his show is not on every week of the year. When the Crown Jools of music television is off air (you've got to appreciate what I did there!) there are few other music platforms available, other than T4 and the Album Chart Show on Channel 4. How, and more pertinently why has music television eaten itself up in this way?

The simple answer to this appears to be a case of short-term thinking by television executives. It was the men in grey suits that deemed that Top Of The Pops had come to the end of the road because of consumer buying habits and falling ratings. Yet, there was a much simpler explanation for Top Of The Pops' falling ratings, namely that it was being scheduled at the wrong time. The programme was habitually screened at 7:30 on a Friday night, in direct competition with Coronation Street on ITV1. Given that Corrie has generally been the first or second highest rated television programme for the vast majority of the past two decades, it stands to reason that the BBC's flagship programme was taking a kicking in the ratings. Had it not occurred to the schedulers that simply moving the programme to another night or another time might have made more sense? Wednesday night at 7:00 maybe, or even run the programme as a live show on a Sunday night an hour after the charts have aired on Radio 1 and that way the chart news would be hot off the press and would make the programme feel fresh. Top Of The Pops typically returns twice a year over Christmas and New Year, including its special Christmas Day episode that prefixes the Queen's Speech. It will not take Paddy Power to identify that this episode will poll high in the Christmas ratings list.

The absence of specialist music television shows dedicated to live performances means that established acts have to be more creative and accommodating about where they go to perform their new material and this is beginning to result in credible acts performing their latest numbers in the most curious of settings. For the Manics in the Strictly studio, read also KT Tunstall performing on the Andrew Marr Show and Daybreak. This is perhaps less of a concern for upcoming acts who are more technology savvy in using the likes of YouTube, Twitter and MySpace in order to publicise their material and live performances. But it would seem myopic to believe that just because social media platforms are available that more conventional media should become redundant for the purposes of performing live music.

There is a real possibility that a whole new generation of the British public will grow up and only see live music segments performed on the likes of the X-Factor and as a short interlude on gentle, breezy chat programmes where the material cannot be too edgy in case it frightens the horses, or wakens Alan Titchmarsh from his almost permanent comatosed state. This seems like a terrible waste because the likes of TFI Friday were once programmes where the audience could discover previously untapped gems. The equivalent programmes in 2010 are conspicuous by their absence and only serves to prove that the major media platforms are obsessively concerned with bending over to meet the demands of advertisers and grabbing the all-important ratings, regardless of whether they are removing the contents of their network's soul at one and the same time.

Times are a changing

Evening folks.

Well, another week has flashed by and today sees the conclusion to another monumental mission. No, Gordon Brown has not left office yet, but it is the final of The Apprentice series 5 tonight. Who will be rewarded with a £100,000 a year salary and a permanent seat in Sir Alan, soon to be Lord Sugar's empire? By the way, doesn't the boss's new title make him sound like he should be a character in a Roald Dahl book? My prediction on a previous blog that Debra would go all the way has gone slightly awry but to my mind at least, the best two candidates over the whole series will be contesting the final.

Yasmina did not know the difference between a gross and net profit, so probably best that she doesn't end up doing Sugar's accounts! However, she has shown herself to be a determined candidate who is strong on the hard sell and not someone to be crossed. By contrast, Kate is less maverick than Yasmina and tends to go more by the book. I do not for one second believe she is the robot that the press and Sir Alan's advisors would make you believe. She might have the appearance of the dizzy blonde but I think there is a quiet determination to succeed inside and whereas Yasmina's skills lie in her hard selling, direct approach, Kate has a softer set of selling and people skills and she has shown herself to be a consumate presenter. It's going to be a close run thing and by the time you see this blog, the result will probably be known. But I'm predicting Yasmina to edge it by the slightest of slight margins, as Sugar tends to like someone who has a bit of maverick about them.

Well, there are those that think many of The Apprentice candidates are not fit enough to run a railway. Speaking of which, let's proceed to the first topic of this blog.

1. Changing the concept of time
As a regular commuter on one of the busiest rail passenger routes in the country, I am well used to the common problems that come with the territory. Finding a seat on a rush hour train is always a challenge, especially when you can guarantee that in every carriage there will be at least one selfish passenger who is apparently oblivious to the plight of the other passengers on the train. So while you are squashed like sardines in the standing room area with fold-up bicycles and each other for company, at least the rucksacks of the world can travel in comfort with a seat to themselves, despite the fact that there is a luggage rack especially for them.

As if the people aren't bad enough, the trains themselves are often awful to travel on, especially if like me, you have the misfortune of usually travelling on First Capital Connect. For those that are not familiar with First Capital, it would be fair to say that they are the Ryanair of the commuter train sector, with a very definite no-frills policy. Their trains invariably are so old that they would probably qualify for a Saga holiday. Due to their age and the lack of maintenance staff, the trains are usually to be found in a dirty and odious state. Draughts are another common problem. Not people playing the board game you will understand, although the phenomenon certainly leaves commuters in a huff. This is due to the windows often not closing properly, which results in not just a draught when you go through a tunnel but the accompanying hazards of a nasty din and a less than pleasant smell.

If you want to get between the south coast and the capital in a reasonable time, then First Capital is not the service for you. I have not given them my own private epithet of Slow Capital Connect for no good reason. If you get on a Brighton to Bedford service, the train will stop at near enough every station on its route between Brighton and East Croydon. I previously did not realise anyone with a pulse inhabited Wivelsfield or Balcombe! First Capital also suffers for being the least priority carrier on the line. Therefore, if there are train delays between London and Brighton, which is near enough every night, then people catching the First Capital trains will be the ones who ultimately suffer, as the Southern trains are allowed to move on ahead.

So I was rather intrigued and somewhat nonplussed by the news this week that train reliability and punctuality is at an all time high. According to the statistics that have been released, ninety per cent of long train journeys in this country are on time. Apparently, journeys that are classified as short journeys have a higher percentage in the punctuality stakes. If, like me, you found yourself thinking that these statistics could not be plausible, well it would seem that they are. However, it has meant a whole re-defining of the English language in order for the plausibility to be effective.

It was Mark Twain I think who came up with the quote about lies, damned lies and statistics. I wonder what the creator of Tom Sawyer would have to say about these statistics, because they would confirm his point. According to the report, being on time means that trains are no more than five minutes late on a short distance journey, let's say from Brighton to Gatwick Airport, and no more than ten minutes late on a long distance journey, let's say London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly. Now you begin to see how these statistics have been manipulated in order to produce the desired results for the people in power.

Surely there is no grey area in measuring being on time? On time means on time. Therefore, if your train from Brighton is scheduled to arrive at Gatwick Airport at 6:30 and it gets there at 6:34, it is late. I imagine that if the passenger alighted the train at that very destination, hopped on the travelator to the airport departures hall to go and check in only to find that they were late, there would be far less leniency shown for their late arrival. If you or I turned up to work four minutes late every morning, we would soon find ourselves up before the beak and if you turned up four minutes late to school every morning, you would soon find yourself in detention. It does not send out a good message to other walks of life if arriving five minutes after the scheduled ETA is considered to be acceptable.

Rather than trying to spin a yarn by redefining the parameters of time, it would be more effective if those overseeing the running of the transport infrastructure in this country could look at ways in which the railways could be run more efficiently, in order to encourage people away from using their cars for their journeys to work. I think that there are some drivers out there that would consider travelling by rail to work to avoid the daily road rage on the M23 or M25, but who are preturbed by the lack of reliability on public transport. For public transport to ever be a meaningful alternative to the car, it has to be both reliable and flexible to the passenger's needs. Right now, the trains all too often fail on both levels.

There is only a finite amount of track that is carrying a vast number of trains across the network on seven days a week. This causes several problems, it means that track maintenance is frequently needed, sometimes as a matter of emergency and this results in delays to trains. On an everyday basis, the sheer volume of trains on the track can automatically cause delays and especially if one train is running late, it means that an orderly queue of trains will form behind it, all of which will end up getting to their destination late as well.

There are those that blame these problems on the privatisation of the rail service which resulted in separate operators running the trains and another operator appointed to maintain the tracks. While I think that some carriers are more efficient than others, I do not think that the faults of the railway lie with its privatisation. In fact, I think you can trace the seeds of the malaise further back to a time when the railway was completely in the hands of Government control.

Both my parents spent the early parts of their working lives working in the railway industry and from what they told me, the impact of the Beeching Report in the early 1960s was what led the railways towards some of the recurring problems that it now faces. I did not really appreciate what they had said until I found myself watching the excellent BBC2 series fronted by Ian Hislop that looked at the closure of some of the routes in the aftermath of the Beeching Report and the impact that these closures had on their community. The closures of certain lines were made on the basis of profitability, an inevitable decision maybe, but one which you would normally expect from where a model of privatisation exists, which back in 1963 it did not.

In times of economic strife, it is unlikely to expect the Government of the day to invest money into the improvement of the transport infrastructure, especially in terms of developing new track. If, as expected, the Conservatives are in power by around this time next year, then I would expect their policies to be more focused around budget cuts to public services and so I would not expect transport to be any different.

However, with an Olympics in the capital just three years away, a need for a reliable and punctual transport infrastructure running from in and out of the capital is going to be heightened and it would help if the transport network could ensure that passengers in the home counties do not need to travel to the capital first and then change in order to get somewhere else in the home counties. For someone living in Sussex, but wanting to travel to most parts of Kent for example, travelling to a London station and then changing is usually a pre-requisite. The Government in power in twelve months time should at least explore the feasibility of introducing three new lines in Southern England to provide some alternative routes to the congested ones inside the capital.

That way, passengers may start to feel that they are getting better value for money on the often extortionate rail fares and can arrive on time by anyone's standards, not only by definition of a man in a charcoal suit, eating hob-nobs in the Transport Office.

2. Always a frown with Gordon Brown
Continuing the musical theme aluded to by the title to this blog and this sub-heading, time seemingly is running out for Gordon Brown's premiership if the events of the last week are anything to go by. Just as they say that Assistant Managers are not always cut out to be good Managers in football, there is also previous precedent to back up the argument that successful Chancellors of the Exchequer do not make for good Prime Ministers. The very notion that Brown was a successful Chancellor would appear to be subject to conjecture these days given the ramshackle state that the economy now finds itself in, but until recently, Brown's stock from his ten years in charge of the Treasury was at a high level.

The past week has seen a chain of events that even Brown could not have totally foreseen, even allowing for the ongoing furore resulting from the Daily Telegraph's expenses expose, which let's not forget, has not only named and shamed Labour politicians but members of the house from rival parties as well. The resignation of several ministers over three days during the week were not made necessarily as noises of dissatisfaction towards Gordon Brown and his ability to lead their party into an election, but more to do with the protecting of self-interest. The public anger that manifested itself in the aftermath of the expenses scandal breaking was for the very reason that it was transparent that MPs had put their own interests ahead of the constituents they were serving, and yet, still now it would seem that there are so many of Westminster's least wanted that are looking after number one first, second and third.

The resignations of Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears were to be expected. Neither politician is popular with the public due to their part in the expenses scandal. Smith also has attracted criticism from libertarians for her role as Home Secretary in putting in place the plans to introduce identity cards. In Blears's case, her lack of popularity with the public has been more due to her just presenting herself as a pretty ghastly human being. If I was a betting man, I would make her favourite to have her effigy feature in the Lewes Bonfire procession later this year.

There is a saying that I'm sure many fellow males can vouch is true from personal experience and that is to say be careful of a woman scorned. That is what happened later in the week when former Europe minister Caroline Flint resigned after sending Gordon Brown an open letter in which she said she objected to being used as "window dressing", just a day after having given her full support to Gordon Brown. Leaving an appraisal of Ms Flint's not insignificant MILF qualities aside for one moment, I would think that her decision to resign was more to do with her not benefiting in Gordon Brown's cabinet reshuffle. It is known that Ms Flint is a close ally of both Blears and Smith, which leads me to think she was also trying to strike a blow for the sisterhood, however misguided that was.

There have been accusations that Gordon Brown has chauvinistic tendencies and that has influenced his recent hirings and firings, while his close and trusted male allies have fared best from the reshuffle. I think this trend is a coincidence and the real reason that Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears left is simply that their positions became untenable and so they resigned before they were pushed. In Caroline Flint's case, her political career is far from outstanding and her previous spell as Housing Minister came to an end when confidential briefing notes for a meeting at 10 Downing Street were captured on camera.

If the Labour Government was in a healthy position, these eruptions would be far less harmful than they are proving to be. But because the foundations have already been shaken by the ongoing economic travails and the expenses row, what should have been a minor earth tremor is more like a full scale earthquake. The Labour administration has been in power for twelve years now and like any Government that has been in power for so long, it has become stale and is making routine mistakes that a Government fresh to power would not be making.

The question of how long can Gordon Brown last as Prime Minister will become apparent over coming days, but it will depend on whether a senior member of his serving cabinet breaks rank and calls for a leadership election. Either that, or another senior member of the party that has previously served in the cabinet puts themselves forward as an alternative leader and attracts enough support from within the party that a leadership contest is triggered. If that happens, then it could result in a similar scenario to the one that occurred in 1990 when Margaret Thatcher was forced from office. Thatcher won the first ballot but did not have quite enough of a majority to prevent a second ballot happening. This lack of a majority was enough for Thatcher to tender her resignation. A similar situation with Gordon Brown should not be ruled out, especially if the European election results are as grim for Labour as the preliminary indications suggest they will be.

Regardless of whether Brown does get a stay of execution or not, I feel that it is unlikely that we will get beyond the autumn without a General Election occurring. Brown's lack of popularity at the moment can in part be explained by the fact that he has never been elected by the British public and it is inevitable that unless there is a dramatic change in the public mood in the coming weeks and months, which given that unemployment is rising all the time would seem unlikely, then Brown would face a heavy defeat at the polls. A change of leader for Labour would only result in a slight reduction in the crushing majority that the Conservatives will surely gain.

The early indications from the European elections, not just in the United Kingdom, but in Europe's other leading countries are that the centre right parties are going to fare best in the polls. There are a couple of things that can be read into this. Maybe that people are voting for parties opposed to a Federal Europe and, using the United Kingdom as an example, are siding with the parties that will favour a referendum on the European Union. It could also suggest that parties that favour tougher policies on immigration are getting favoured over the parties with a more relaxed stance. Hence, the Tories, UK Independence Party and, alas, the British National Party seem likely to gain in terms of their percentage of the vote while the Liberal Democrats and obviously the Labour Party will be in for a sharp fall.

I think on a more general point though it comes down to people making a protest vote and saying "we will vote for anyone but Labour". Having crossed Labour out, they are then looking at which party is most likely to take tough decisions in a time when the political and economic climates demand them. Seemingly, the pragmatism of the Conservative Party is trusted to make the hard decisions more than other opposition parties at the moment.

Interesting thought processes, but David Cameron still has much to prove. Amid all the calls that Cameron has made for an election, he has been far less vocal about his plans for governing the country and as Brown rightly pointed out in PMQs this week, Cameron has done little to challenge him on matters of policy within the chamber in recent times. Cameron's response to this will be that he has been representing the public mood in demanding when an election will be called, but it is also convenient for him in masking his party's policy shortcomings. Cameron will need to get writing his manifesto fast as I expect he will need to jump on the battle bus in late summer.

3. A right royal PR disaster
This weekend has seen the commemoration of the sixty fifth anniversary of D-Day and Operation Overlord with a number of special events and speeches laid on in Normandy. Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown were all in attendance, but it was the one person who was not that generated the most controversy. Her Majesty the Queen was expected to represent Britain at the ceremony, but she was to be found at Epsom watching one of her racehorses on the undercard to The Derby.

The circumstances around The Queen not being in attendance has naturally caused outrage in quarters where outrage is only too easily vented, namely in the editorial offices of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. Conspiracy theories have been circulated and questions have been asked as to who it was that decide to snub Ma'am when sending out the invites. Whoever it was, it was certainly a very foolish oversight by those concerned.

There are those that suggested The Queen should have insisted that she be allowed to attend. But it does seem absurd to suggest that a serving monarch should go begging cap in hand to be allowed to attend the commemoration. The nostalgia buffs have been quick to point out that the Queen served in the forces towards the end of World War II and so she should therefore be there as the survivors could more readily identify with her. But this is all symbolism really. Yes, if the Queen had been invited at an earlier juncture, I am sure she would have made the trip across the channel. The fact of the matter is that she was not, so should she just wait by a telephone in the hope that she could get an invite right at the last?

It is also worth bearing in mind who ended up going in her place. That's right, the Prince of Wales. First in line to the throne. The next king of England. If he is not deemed ready to represent the Royal Family now on a national duty, when exactly will he be? His mother is 83 years old, his father is 88 years old. Just because they are royalty does not mean they should be immune from slowing down a tiny bit and letting others take on some more responsibility. Let's face it, sending the Duke of Edinburgh on a foreign sojourn is a risky business at the best of times, let alone for such a sombre occasion.

The Prince of Wales will become King Charles III in the not too distant future, you would expect, either as a result of his mother's death or through her abdicating to allow him his chance as he is now 61 years old. It is only natural that there should be some kind of handover period where the future king gets to represent his country on state occasions. His appearance in Normandy might have been an impromptu one, but I doubt it will be the last time that he is asked to go somewhere in place of his mother, and nor should it be. As with everything else right now, let's blame this PR disaster on the Government.

4. Nothing without the product
The business pages in the past week have been dominated by the news of General Motors' bankruptcy. This initially came as shock news as GM have always been regarded as one of the real powerhouses of US commerce and big trend setters for global businesses in establishing a functional organisational structure as a division of labour.

Scratch beneath the surface though and you realise the truth is that GM has failed simply because of one very basic fact. Their products have just not been good enough. That is the bottom line. You could in fact extend that comment to the US car industry as a whole. Whereas once, Henry Ford had been a pioneer in getting the US to lead the way in manufacturing standards and product differentiation for the humble motor vehicle, their cars have faded in popularity as more Americans have switched to driving European or Japanese cars. The Japanese manufacturing principles of TQM and Just-in Time have been instrumental in raising the bar of car manufacturing and their leading brands, such as Honda and Toyota have gone from strength to strength while time has stood still for GM and its compatriots.

There had been suggestions that the US Government should step in and save GM in much the same way that it did with its big insurance giant AIG last year. That was an altogether different situation though, because unless the vast majority of businesses in the United States owns a GM car which is of significant asset value to the future of the business then the impact of their loss to business would not be felt. Without the leading insurance company in the country, it stands to reason that companies would go to the wall because their insurance guarantors would not be in a position to pay out. You can survive without a fleet of company cars, unless you happen to be a taxi company, but without any insurance, you are permanently behind the eight ball. There is no point sustaining a failing company unless there is no-one else out there in a position to do things better and that is why there will be no rescue package for General Motors.

Nonetheless, the impact of General Motors will have an effect on the community within Detroit. What was once the US's motor city is now facing an uncertain future and that is where it needs to be wary of Detroit's other less wanted tag, that of being a city rife with crime, not just confined to bananas being inserted in tailpipes as happened in Beverly Hills Cop which was set in the city. Barack Obama as senator of the adjacent state of Illinois will no doubt be aware of the challenges ahead and the need to retrain those whose jobs are lost, so avoid the temptation of a life of crime in order to make ends meet.

History is not all bunk

Hello again.

Hope you have all enjoyed your weeks and have had opportunity to take advantage of the early summer sunshine that has hit these shores. I get the impression that the beautiful people inhabiting this fair isle must be solar powered, you don't see them during the winter but all of sudden, they are there to be found in droves now that the sun has come out.

Well, my week was somewhat marred by the wrong result on Wednesday night in Rome. It was disappointing to get so far only to fall at the final hurdle, but what made the result harder to take was how United just did not turn up on the night. There is a time to be carrying out inquests into why United came up so short and possibly a future blog will explore that in more detail, but for now, let me just say that it is easy to forget how well Barcelona played because of the tepid performance that United put up on the night. In particular, the possession football that Andres Iniesta and Xavi displayed in midfield was a joy to behold.

Whenever United relinquished possession, I felt it would take five minutes to get the ball back. One of the common complaints of English footballers is that they are unable to keep possession of the ball. Well, a DVD of how Xavi and Iniesta managed it on Wednesday night will be more of an education than any coaching manual, their ability to keep hold of the ball and to change the tempo of the match was what gave Barcelona the platform to win the match. Oh well, one match should not undo a good season's work and I am sure that Sir Alex Ferguson will remind the players of this failure to drive their hunger to go one better next season.

Well, let's not wallow in self-pity any longer. It is only eleven players kicking a sheep's bladder along a cut up pitch, after all. Let's get down to the nitty gritty and consider some of the other talking points of the week.

3. History should be more than just grey text
This past week has seen it reported that History is not being taught adequately in schools and that children are now less knowledgeable about historical events than they have been in previous generations. I am not certain about how this particular trend has been measured unless they have pulled together a focus group of people from different ages and tested them on history questions, such as when was the Battle of Naseby, who was the king at the time of Guy Fawkes's attempt to overthrow the Government and who really won the Second World War. However this insight was gathered, I think that a good point has been stumbled upon.

First of all, as I prelude to everything else I go on to write, can I say that I love history and learning about historical facts. I did study the subject at school and indeed took it for my GCSEs. I thought that the teaching of the subject at my school was first rate in as much as the teachers did their best to facilitate good learning and were enthusiastic about the subject they were teaching, presenting it in a fun way. If you went to my school, you would know that such a teaching approach was not uniform across other subjects. I imagine that is one of the hazards of a comprehensive school education.

However, the one drawback of teaching in school back in my teenage years, and which at a pinch I imagine still applies today, is that the learning was very much dependent on the humble text book. The school history department had its very own resource room full of a plethora of history books, many of which had been defaced and dog-eared over the years by less keen students of the subject, who were only in class as a matter of compulsion. Text is perhaps the easiest way of conveying the rudimentary facts of the subject, but in terms of the audience reading them in order to learn, much of the knowledge the reader is supposed to acquire is lost due to its grey presentation.

If schools want to make history more appealing, and more significantly, of more educational value to their students then they need to get with the times and embrace technology and interactivity. Look at the success of Brainiac in terms of getting children interested in chemistry and physics. It presents the subject in a fun way, conducting experiments and blowing things up, something that tends to get people's attention and crucially, people do learn from the programme. Schools need to follow the lead of Brainiac and expand their resources far beyond books. Visual and audio resources should be available for a far greater part of the syllabus. Expeditions to relevant history museums or places of local historical relevance should be considered, while how about some role playing exercises? I'm sure the average would much rather dress up as a Tudor than have to wear their school uniform for the day.

It is often said that the main purpose of History is that it gives people a sense of perspective and it understands how the world we live in now has come to be as it is. It is also argued that the point of learning History is that we can learn from mistakes made in the past so as to avoid them in the future and this can provide people with more appreciation and enable them to show more humility for what they have. I personally think there is a lot of truth in these schools of thought, although I would say that if you provide that argument to the average teenager then the likelihood is that they will not want to learn.

If you look at the success of a number of history programmes on television, such as any of Simon Schama's series or even Andrew Marr's excellent History of Modern Britain, then it is quite clear that there is a captive audience for learning about history. It is also true, however, that much of the audience that will watch such programmes will have developed a comparatively late interest in the subject and the chances are that when they were at school, this is a subject that they would have shunned at the age of 14 when choosing what subjects to study for GCSEs.

I think there are a few factors that provide reason for this trend. Firstly, I think that as I have sort of touched upon earlier, History is seen as a slightly unfashionable subject at school. As a teenager, anything over two years ago tends to be regarded as ancient and so what happened 200 years ago or longer just holds no appeal. This is a problem that there is no real solution to because the very nature of the subject means that it is essential to deal with events from far back in time. Recalling my teenage years, I can remember that many fellow students chose their options by the not very scientific method of picking the subjects their friends were doing. Due to History having the perception problem of being the chosen subject of the nerds, it did tend to be shunned by the "in-crowd".

There is also another reason that History is sometimes cast aside among the more worldly wide teenager. While there are potentially lucrative careers ahead for those that study Economics, Geography or even Media Studies, the end game for successful students of History presents a much more narrow scope, with the possible exceptions of being a museum curator or an archaeologist, or indeed, a professional historian. In the fifteen years since I left school, I can honestly say that the knowledge that I accumulated from my days of studying History has served no practical use other than in feeding my recall in the pub quiz's History round. There are no real insights that History can offer when you are forging a career in office administration jobs in the voluntary sector.

And yet perhaps we are all missing the point. Maybe the purpose of History lies beyond providing a gateway into paid employment. As discussed earlier, there is a strong argument to suggest that learning History is essential in knowing how we all came to be here today. The skills learnt from this can transcend just one's working life or their future studies, but can provide the insight that enables people to better citizens, plus it provides some background in helping people to provide a considered argument, a skill that is required in many facets of our lives. Surely these benefits go far beyond serving us just in our professional lives and can lead to a more balanced society?

I think that it needs to be accepted that some of the barriers to making History a subject of the teenage masses are insurmountable. Some of the problems of perception are as much the fault of the teenage hormones as they are of the subject or the way that it is taught. People are simply more ready to engage in the subject as an interest in adult life because they have matured and first hand experience has taught them things that history also does and so they can more readily identify with these insights. Nonetheless, History does have a clear reason for being and those that do want to learn should be grabbed at an early stage and so schools should take heed and embrace as many resources as they are able to and not just rely on their printed material.

4. Variety is no longer the spice of life
So, another reality television series is over with Saturday night heralding the final of Britain's Got Talent. Am I alone in noting the irony of this title when the judging panel includes Amanda Holden and Piers Morgan? What exactly is Amanda Holden's talent other than being the obligatory eye candy? Let's face it, her biggest claim to fame is that she used to be married to Les Dennis before giving Les the metaphorical "it-err", as associated with Les's quiz show of many years. As for Morgan, it has long been realised that his main talent is simply his ability to be in the right place at the right time. Otherwise, I suggest he enters the Highland Games this year because although he is not Scottish, he certainly possesses the right attributes to know what to do with the caber!

Sadly, I missed the final of ITV1's Saturday night showpiece as I was out playing pool, but I gather that Simon Cowell's beloved Susan Boyle was defeated by a dance troupe from Essex. In fact, while this series appears to have captivated several million television viewers these past few weeks, I only watched one episode during its run. That episode was one of the heats and it was enjoyable enough fare featuring a bloke whose idea of a musical act was to use repeated flatulence, another young chap who looked like he belonged in the Foo Fighters singing soprano and a David Blaine wannabe who held his head underwater before doing some fire-eating, all the while his wife looked on. It seemed quite formulaic television, it is easy to see why it has attracted high audience figures because the programme is easy to follow and the audience has the ability to ultimately affect the outcome by voting.

I will readily admit that, on the whole, reality television as a genre does not really appeal to me. There are certain exceptions as there always are and I do try and watch The Apprentice and Dragons' Den whenever they are on and I happen to be in, but this is probably more because of my background as a Business Studies student rather than because I enjoy seeing publicity seeking people make an idiot of themselves in an environment that is out of their comfort zone. Programmes such as I'm A Celebrity and Big Brother hold no interest to me whatsoever. Who on earth in their right mind watches the live Big Brother round the clock on E4? In our everyday lives, I can think of nothing more tedious than spending time seeing what the neighbours are saying while eating their breakfast, so why do our attitudes change when watching television? I suppose the truth is that there is a hidden voyeur in all of us that finds it interesting to see what other people get up to in a confined environment and how the confines of that environment affects the human dynamics. Well, either that, or there just isn't anything else on worth watching!

Programmes like Britain's Got Talent and the X-Factor are, at least to my mind, car crash television. Therefore, the only time I really would watch either programme is at the very early stage when you have the preliminary rounds and therefore, the people who are entertaining simply because they are terrible. In particular, I enjoy the sense of delusion that some of the performers have when Simon Cowell and friends send them packing. They are in denial about their dreams being shattered and tell the judges they have made a big mistake and that they just chose the wrong song or the wrong routine. It is never because they simply have no talent because they are so wrapped up in their aspirations. It probably does not make me sound like a very good person to say that this is the most appealing aspect of these types of show, but the proof is in the pudding. These shows get their best ratings in the early episodes and for the final. If this makes me bad, then I am certainly not alone in the doghouse.

One of the interesting points that I heard raised this week is that the popularity of Britain's Got Talent demonstrates that variety performances are much missed on television. This is a complaint I have heard before from people of an era that can remember such spectacles as Sunday Night at the London Palladium. It is an argument, however, that I vehemently disagree with. The success of Britain's Got Talent, far from demonstrating that variety is missed on television, in fact proves exactly why it is no longer shown on television outside of talent shows.

People watch Britain's Got Talent because it is television that is easy to watch as a family on Saturday night and because the show features everyday members of the public who believe they have a talent, but invariably have far less talent than they believe. From what I have seen of the series, it has shown that some forms of entertainment that were bracketed in to the broad category of variety are so old hat in this day and age. Once you have seen one ventriloquist act, you have seen them all. People fire-eating ceased being entertainment when people stopped going to circuses. And magicians performing cheap card tricks is no longer seen as an act of genius, but just some show-off who knows how to bend the rules. In this series of Britain's Got Talent, even a five year old was performing lame magic tricks. The days of Paul Daniels wowing a prime time audience are thankfully a thing consigned to the distant past.

Surely the whole point of a variety show is to see the most talented performers in their own field showcasing their talents to a live audience. But how do you accommodate these performers all onto one stage? The best stand-up comedians and the best family entertainers are unlikely to fit onto the same bill as the best classical and contemporary musical acts any more because people are more picky and choosy about who and what they want to watch. Taking these broad categories of performers as examples, could you ever foresee a live variety performance with Jack Dee, Ricky Gervais, Jon Culshaw, Brian Conley, Bruce Forsyth, Katherine Jenkins, Jools Holland, the cast of Chicago, Take That, U2 and Darcey Bussell all sharing a stage on the same night, at the same location? It just would not happen because the audience that wants to see U2 does not want to see Take That and equally the Take That fans would not want to see U2. The audience that wants to see Ricky Gervais does not want to see Brian Conley and vice versa, while fans of Brucie and Darcey are going to be less enamoured by the Chicago cast's presence.

Cast your minds back a couple of summers to the Live Earth concerts. The audience were waiting for Elton John to top the bill but the floral industry's favourite tantrum throwing ivory tickler was running a few minutes late. In order to fill time, Ricky Gervais was sent out to entertain the crowd. Under different circumstances, Gervais would have been welcomed, but at a live music venue, the crowd came to see musicians, not comedians and consequently, Gervais far from warming the crowd up before Reginald Dwight took to the stage had the effect of de-energising them and was in fact booed by some sections of the crowd. Admittedly, Gervais's set was not his finest comedic ensemble but the main reason for the audience disapproval was that comedy on a music bill mixes as well as water does with electricity. The reverse principle would also be equally true.

The point is that in modern times, people are selective about what they want to see and when they want to see it. There are very few programmes on television that serve to meet the needs of a wide audience. Programmes are more likely to cater for a certain demographic, people of a certain age and with a particular interest. There are some exceptions, with Later with Jools Holland quite deliberately showcasing a wide range of musical talents so that there is a little bit of something in the programme for everyone and it gives people opportunity to go out and make a cup of tea when their less favoured musicians are performing. Above all though, the main selling point of the programme is the amiability of Holland in the role as mein host.

A point that I have made on these pages before and which I adamantly stand by is that people's yearning for nostalgia can be very misleading and some of the things people wax lyrical about now, were not so popular at the time. So when people talk about the good days of variety television, they are remembering Morecambe and Wise performing or Tommy Cooper performing a magic trick going wrong or telling a daft joke or they are remembering members of the Rat Pack performing to a live audience. This is all well and good, but for every Tommy Cooper, there was a Duncan Norvelle or Joe Pasquale. For Morecambe and Wise, the flip side was Cannon and Ball and if the Rat Pack represented the pinnacle of musical talent, the bottom rung was represented by Showaddywaddy.

Variety as a form of entertainment belongs in a different era, an era when people regularly went to holiday camps in Skegness or Whitby for their summer holidays and consequently, the comedians of the day performed night after night at holiday camps during the summer season, before heading back to the smoky working man's clubs for the winter. In this day and age, fewer people holiday at such resorts as they prefer to trust the reliability of the sun on the continent and the top comedians of 2009 perform sell out tours at large theatres across the country rather than small seaside venues. All the holiday resorts get left with are the middle aged comedians who are so down on their luck that they have to supplement their income by doing some window cleaning and a thousand and one Elvis impersonators. Admittedly, the current economic crisis is seeing an upturn in people holidaying at seaside resorts in the UK, but I very much doubt this will result in old school variety returning to popular mainstream taste.

The problem of nostalgia is not just confined to one's memories of variety. It also applies to situation comedies and to remakes of old programmes or old movies. A recent example of this has been shown by the critical response to the remake of Reggie Perrin. Although the programme has attracted good audience figures, television critics have poured scorn on it, saying it is not a patch on the original and that Martin Clunes was not fit to fill the late Leonard Rossiter's shoes.

Admittedly, I was not born when the original series aired back in the 1970s, but I have watched some episodes when they were repeated some years ago. I thought that the programme was funny in places but also rather dated and that essentially it was Rossiter's powerful performance in the lead role that made the programme. I personally preferred Rossiter's performance as the serial miser and bigot Rigsby in the timeless Rising Damp.

In any event, the remake of Reggie Perrin is not meant to be a straight remake of the programme but a modern day version of the tale in which the lead character plays out his existence in a dead end job with a company that makes disposable razors, rather than selling desserts as he did in the original series. What I thought the remake did particularly well was to make the character's experiences relevant to modern times, capturing well the office culture as well as the mundane routine associated with commuting. This is something that I can particularly relate to in my current circumstances, and I feel that the writers and Clunes's acting performance captured this particularly well.

Far from being a sub-standard remake, I think that the new version of Reggie Perrin has been a very good modern interpretation of the story and Martin Clunes once again proves that he belongs right up there amongst the best comedy actors that these shores have produced with a very believable and moving performance in the central role. Far from turning in his grave, I imagine that if Leonard Rossiter was still alive today, he would have marvelled at Clunes's performance in bringing to life his character to a whole new generation.

The ending to this series suggests that the commissioning of a second series is dependent on the ratings, but I really hope that Clunes and the strong supporting Fay Ripley and Wendy Craig will be back to continue the story next year. But this is the thing with nostalgia, people cannot see past what they remember the first time round, even if the passage of time has in fact blurred their take on reality.

5. Shearer might not be the Messiah, but he could be a very naughty boy
Well, reports of a bubble bursting in the North East of England last Sunday teatime were not without substance. Newcastle United's sixteen year stay in the Premier League came to an end after a feeble 1-0 defeat at Aston Villa ensured that the Magpies would be playing their football in the second tier of the English game in the 2009/10 season. The return of Alan Shearer, this time in a manager's suit was not enough to arrest Newcastle's slide, with the team winning just won of their final eight league matches while under their former number nine's stewardship.

In truth though, Newcastle's current plight is not due simply to recent results but more a legacy of a series of bad decisions taken at board level over the past few years, where those in positions of authority have allowed their hearts to rule their head and impair their judgement. Ever since Sir Bobby Robson was removed of his duties just four matches into Newcastle's 2004/05 campaign, the Magpies have lurched from one bad managerial appointment to another and with each poor appointment, they have also wasted an astronomical amount of money on players whose attitude or injury record ensured they were incongruous in achieving the club's set objectives.

Everything that is wrong with Newcastle's recent setup was demonstrated with the recent revelation that defender Sebastien Bassong was earning just £5,000 a week and has been offered a pay rise in order to persuade him to remain at the club next season. That Bassong was offered a pay rise is not the contentious point, what is shocking, however is that Bassong was earning so little all the while the permanently injured Michael Owen has reputedly been picking up a pay cheque of £115,000. By common consent, Bassong has been Newcastle's best player over the course of the season (admittedly he did not have much competition) while Owen is now living on past glories due to the ravages of injury and lost motivation. This extraordinary discrepancy in Newcastle's wage structure demonstrates an alarming absence of meritocracy and serves to prove where everything has gone wrong at St James's Park and also why their demise has received so little sympathy, as it has been self-inflicted.

Newcastle's supporters will now look to Alan Shearer to stay on and manage the club in the Championship next season, but as the banner on the final day of the season at Villa Park so pointedly said, who is Newcastle's next Messiah, Ant and Dec? This is where Newcastle have continued to go wrong and while you ultimately have to blame the board for making the decisions, the Toon Army support have to take some of the blame for their constant insistence that being "one of us" is a pre-requisite for taking on the Newcastle job. The continual championing of former Newcastle players to be managers of the club has done little to help the club's cause in recent years and what does it really mean to say that the next incumbent needs to "bleed black and white"? Surely, the most crucial aspect in appointing a manager is that they need to be experienced, be able to handle the pressure and know how to get the best out of players. At Newcastle though, there appears to be distrust of anyone coming in from outside the area.

The recent turnaround at Fulham, whose victory at Newcastle in the penultimate week of the season ironically did so much in consigning them to Championship football next season, is testament to what making the right managerial change can achieve. Midway through the 2007/08 season, Fulham were in the Premier League's relegation zone and looked certainties to drop to the Championship. They sacked their manager and replaced him with Roy Hodgson, a 60 year old Englishman who spent his formulative years managing on the continent with spells in charge of the Swiss and Finnish national teams, as well as having a short spell in charge of Inter Milan. Hodgson would not have been many people's first pick as the man to keep Fulham up, especially as his only previous Premier League experience had been over a decade earlier with Blackburn Rovers.

Yet, Hodgson confounded the critics by inspiring Fulham to an astonishing end of season recovery which culminated in the team winning on the final day of the season to stay in the top flight. Hodgson has subsequently transformed the West Londoners and in the 2008/09 season, Fulham have finished a full ten places higher than last season by attaining their highest ever league position in the top flight of seventh place. In achieving this, Fulham have also qualified for European football for next season, which goes to show that if you make the right managerial appointment, you can make such a difference and in a relatively short space of time.

These are the lessons Newcastle need to take heed of if they are to return to the top flight and are to re-establish themselves as a team with aspirations of winning honours. In the short term, they need to solely focus on returning to the Premier League at the first attempt, an accomplishment that all connected with the club would be well advised to not take for granted as the Championship is always an unforgiving division and looks likely to be very competitive next season. Newcastle will need to get some of their mercenaries and over the hill players off of their wage bill and will need to bring players in, but they will be signing Championship level players as reinforcements and there is no guarantee they will sign players any better than those playing elsewhere in the division.

The 64,000 dollar question is whether Alan Shearer will be persuaded to stay for another season. I expect ultimately Shearer will drop his excessive wage demands and will take on the job permanently. The irony, however, is that the manager Newcastle should have appointed two years ago and who may well have kept them in the Premier League, looks likely to be unveiled as the manager of their deadliest rivals Sunderland within the next day. The man in question is Steve Bruce, who is well known as a lifelong supporter of Newcastle who would jump at the chance to manage his hometown club. Instead, in taking the job at Sunderland, he would effectively be ruling himself out of ever managing the Magpies.

If Shearer does stay on at Newcastle, he will need to pick up the ropes pretty quickly and I think the club would be well served in bringing in an experienced manager or coach to work alongside him who would be able to challenge Shearer's thinking. Shearer's existing sidekick Iain Dowie is unlikely to be the right man to perform this role over the longer term as firstly he is likely to go back into club management himself, but I also sense that he is too chummy with Shearer and will therefore find it hard to question his authority. A more senior figure who has seen it all and bought the T-shirt is what is required to help combat Shearer's managerial greenness. Unfortunately, I doubt Coach Carter would be enticed by a cold winter on Tyneside!

I fully expect Shearer to be given the Newcastle job permanently, but ultimately only an immediate return to the Premier League will ensure that Shearer retains his status as Messiah on Tyneside, and is not just a very naughty boy.

6. Debra looks favourite for The Apprentice, but Kate to be the real winner
The hunt for Sir Alan Sugar's fifth apprentice is entering the home straight now with just a quintet of hopefuls remaining with this week's penultimate episode of the series seeing the obligatory interview process with Sugar's merry band of Rottweilers and Jack Russells. Imagine if any of his heavies were conducting a real life job interview, they surely would be contravening employment law with some of the questions they are allowed to ask. It is not so much an interview as a character assassination in some instances.

I have not watched this series as avidly as the previous series, due to the unfortunate scheduling of this series on the same night as Champions League football. Memo to the BBC, please air the next series on a Thursday night when I will be able to guarantee my viewing. However, what I have seen of this series, I would have to say that the male candidates in this series have been a disgrace to their gender. Only James remains of the male folk that started the process, and he really lacks the business acumen to stand any chance of getting beyond the interview stage.

To my mind, the most talented Apprentices this year have been the blonde bombshell Kate and the feisty, fiery saleswoman Yasmina. If the hunt was for my apprentice, these two would indisputably be contesting the final because they have demonstrated the best array of skills, have responded the best to pressure, have led their teams well when asked to and always contributed when amongst the ranks, but are also just very presentable people.

Despite this, however, I have a sneaky suspicion that Debra, the Alan McInally lookalike with a voice like Stacey off Eastenders is going to walk off with the £100,000 job in Sir Alan's corporate empire. She is younger than either Kate or Yasmina at just 23 and although she has shown negative character traits on the tasks during the series, she has also shown good business instincts and has fought her corner well in the board room. These are qualities that Sir Alan Sugar admires and I think he is suspicious of people who come across as too eloquent. Although Debra is raw around the edges, because of her relative inexperience, I expect Sugar feels he can smooth out these edges but can also leave her to get on with doing the job. In a time of financial uncertainty, more than ever Sir Alan is looking for a doer who is capable of the hard sell.

Yasmina to me looks like the stereotype of the common Apprentice runner-up. Consistently good all the way through and a very tough, headstrong cookie who is not afraid to say what she thinks, but ultimately someone Sugar might overlook because of her feistiness. He would be afraid that she would upset people in what tend to be male dominated corridors of power within his organisation. For Yasmina this year, read Claire Young twelve months ago or Ruth Badger back in series two.

In Kate's case, she almost suffers for being so photogenic. People I imagine look at her and think that she is just a dizzy blonde, whereas in fact, I think they might overlook her qualities. The Birmingham lass is a very presentable woman and I am not just talking in terms of aesthetic qualities, but she also has good communication skills and has struck me as being good at dealing with people throughout the process. It would not surprise me if she ends up the real winner from Apprentice series five as if her performance on the home shopping task is anything to go by, she looks a natural in front of the camera and so failure to win the series could prove a blessing in disguise, as a career in the media is surely more lucrative in the long run than managing Sir Alan Sugar's property portfolio.