Life is just a box of chocolates

Happy New Year everyone. I hope 2010 has been good to you all so far and that you are not experiencing the New Year blues. Scientists claim that the week just gone is the most depressing of the year. Let's look at the positives, another week and most of us should have received our first pay packet of the new decade and it isn't too long now until summer comes.

Well, I trust you have all been sticking rigidly to your New Year's resolutions and have become finer citizens as a result. Me, well, I didn't make any resolutions. That way I figured that there was no expectation and I wouldn't feel guilty if I had already broken them by the time the Christmas decorations came down.

As ever quite a few things have been going on to talk about. But the blog title may give a clue as to what the main topic of discussion will be.

Cadbury's being bought by Kraft
The main talking point in the business pages over the past week or so has been the news that the Cadbury's confectionery group has been bought out by Kraft, the American foods company with a vast portfolio of brands, but which is possibly most well known for its Philadelphia cheese spread brand. Kraft had been an active suitor of Cadbury's for several months and they had made a number of "hostile" takeover bids, which Cadbury's management had previously rebuffed. However, a bid of around £12 billion ultimately proved too enticing to shareholders who voted for the takeover to be accepted, no doubt having visions of the killing they could make on their shares. One wonders whether a Wispaing campaign prompted the sudden change of heart.

The general consensus of opinion appears to be that this is a victory for cut-throat Capitalist gains but a kick in the teeth for British industry and for Cadbury's staff. Cadbury's is intrinsically linked to the West Midlands area in which it originated and its Bournville operation is one of Cadbury's strongest emblems. The Bournville name is so associated with Cadbury's that they even lended its name to one of its small chocolate bars. To this day, the firm remains one of the leading employers in the West Midlands and so this takeover by an American company, renowned for closing plants in order to improve efficiency leaves many staff pondering their job security. Just a few years after the closure of Rover, the spectre of potential unemployment hangs large over England's second city.

On first impressions, it would seem that Cadbury's were coerced into selling themselves due to the guerilla style tactics adopted by Kraft. Certainly, it would seem that the hierarchy within Cadbury's did all they could to resist the lure of their American cousins. Months of stand offs took place with the irresistible force of Kraft's intentions coming to no avail against the immovable object of Cadbury's. This begs two questions. What was it that meant Kraft kept persisting? What was in it for them, especially considering the great expense to which Kraft were prepared to go in order to snare Bournville's finest? Secondly, what was it that changed for Cadbury's? What do they get from their union with the powerful American firm?

Dealing with the first question first, Kraft know that the power of the Cadbury's brand will enable them to conquer new markets. Cadbury's has such a powerful brand identity the world over and its portfolio of chocolate bars attract loyalty in many far flung outposts. Think of chocolate and the name of Cadbury's is one of the first words that you would associate with the brown foodstuff. Kraft, by contrast, has relatively minimal presence in the confectionery markets. It acquired Terry's, the English confectioner famous for its Chocolate Orange and All Gold products, in 1993 but with due respect, Terry's is a comparatively small fish against the Leviathan prsence that Cadbury's has in the global chocolate market. Cadbury's previous acquisition of chewing gum producers also allows Kraft to enter another market it does not presently operate in.

The Cadbury's name is all powerful and the quality of its products is well renowned but the principles of the company which are ingrained in the company are what makes it special. Thomas Cadbury, like Joseph Rowntree his fellow confectioner, was a Quaker who believed in Puritan principles of giving back something to people in society who were deprived. Hence these names being given to charitable trusts that still operate to this day. Although the Rowntrees name still appears on many chocolate bars, they have been part of the Nestle empire for the past decade, a Nestle name that is much maligned due to its perceived Capitalist attitudes.

People will see that there is a danger of Cadbury's heading the same way now that it has been acquired by Kraft. However, I think Kraft should do well to remember the power of the Cadbury's brand and what it stands for. Although Cadbury's is now part of the Kraft "family", many of Cadbury's leading branded goods are just so associated with the Cadbury's name that they should adopt a standalone approach to the branding of these products. Using the Cadbury's name will enable Kraft to enter new markets and new regions and so Kraft's marketing men should ensure that they make the most of the good name they have acquired for the princely sum of £12 billion.

To go back to my questions, I asked what would be in it for Cadbury's by them entering into this marriage of convenience with Kraft. Well, it would seem that although Cadbury's is largely the market leader for confectionery in the UK and a fair chunk of continental Europe, in other parts of the world, such as the Americas and the Far East, it finds itself lagging behind Mars in terms of market share. Although Kraft does not have much experience in the confectionery markets, it has good background knowledge of these regions due to the success of some of its other food products. This knowledge appears to be the vote swinger and could present a number of new opportunities for Cadbury's and for the diversification of the brand into new products.

There are concerns though, both for those directly affected by this deal and those indirectly so. Kraft have shown in the past that they are quite willing to make efficiency cuts and relocations in order to save money. Terry's chocolates for example are no longer produced in the original home town of the confectioner, York, but instead they are produced in the world's very hotbed of chocolate products, Poland. Rumour has it that Kraft agreed a deal to set up chocolate factories in downtown Krakow in exchange for 100 plumbers to be dispatched to the West Midlands, although this may just be a myth. Job cuts are likely to occur at some point, but there must be particular concern that the iconic Bournville could be closed down. Personally, I doubt this will happen, certainly not in the short term. Bournville is an important part of the Cadbury's brand and so if the plant is to be phased out, it will be done over time. That doesn't mean to say there won't be redundancies there. I expect this will be inevitable. What I do envisage happening is that other factories could be closed and it is certainly feasible that some relocations to Eastern Europe or Asia could be part of the strategy.

On a wider point, it is a sad reality that there are very few British companies with a global profile that still exist due to their swallowing up by foreign direct investment. The British car market ceased to be some time ago, but within the banking and utility sectors there are very few major players that are wholly British owned now. This is something that we bemoan, after all Britain invented all of these things, didn't they? Chocolate? Tick. Banks? Ah yes. Cars? Of course, that Henry Ford was Dagenham born and bred. Ah, hang on.

Speaking of banks, the news that Kraft had been lent some money by the Royal Bank of Scotland to part finance their takeover was greeted with uproar in some quarters because of RBS being in Government hands and this deal seemingly not being in the national interest. Realistically though, the RBS would have had no business vetoing this deal. Regardless of whether a bank is privately or publicly owned, its only consideration when lending money should be whether the transaction poses too great a risk to them. So long as Kraft showed concrete evidence that its adoption of Cadbury's posed no major risk to its long term financial sustainability then RBS were perfectly entitled to lend its customer the money it needed. Once banks start getting involved in ethical concerns and not on what is a financially viable project then you get problems and that is why banks failed in the first place, hence some of them being put up for public ownership.

While it is sad that Cadbury's employees face an uncertain future due to the corporate muscle that Kraft have exercised, it does not need to be the end of the Cadbury's story. There are too many identifiable products that are so intrinsically part of the Cadbury's family and the fabric and ethos that added up to the Cadbury's name is too powerful for Kraft to shed after 200 years of heritage. Sadly there are casualties in every war, but it would be counter-productive for Kraft to be too gung-ho in its approach. Apart from the not inconsiderable financial motivations, it was for reasons of synergy that this union came to pass and the knowledge of markets that Kraft and Cadbury's can both impart is likely to ensure that both names continue to flourish for the foreseeable future, even if the ownership is no longer in British hands.

Jonathan Ross leaving the BBC
The news of Jonathan Ross's departure from the BBC did not elicit a great deal of surprise, although it did receive plenty of press and Internet message board scrutiny in the days that followed the announcement. The main question was whether Ross chose to leave before he was pushed in order to pursue greater autonomy and possibly far greater riches in pastures new, or alternatively, whether the BBC chose not to renew Ross's contract beyond the summer because they felt Ross's continued presence left them with a permanent souvenir, a millstone around the neck, from the absurdly overblown Sachsgate affair.

Whilst we can only speculate on the conversations and events that led to this privately conducted parting of the ways that was so paradoxically played out in the public eye, it would seem reasonable to conclude that Ross took his decision to leave before he was pushed, or before he was told in no uncertain terms that there would be no deal. By commenting that he never negotiated a new deal, this makes it appear that Ross made the decision to leave and that the BBC were willing to let their most prosperously remunerated employee move on to more creative freedom with no hard feelings.

The truth of course, is somewhat different to the euphemistic and cordial ending that Ross and the BBC execs would like to pass off as the gospel. From the BBC point of view, Ross's continued stay at the BBC after so many other names implicated in the Sachs affair sacrificed themselves has meant that the one time TV researcher has become a continual elephant in the room and it has been becoming increasingly apparent from the media coverage amongst the BBC's most hostile enemies that Ross would have remained so for as long as he was on the BBC payroll and appearing across their network.

From Ross's end, the aftermath of Sachsgate and the culture of compliance that it created is that he has been stifled of creative freedom. In short, he has been muzzled and an off-the-cuff performer like Ross is not going to work well in such conditions. Firstly, his chat show was heavily edited upon Ross's return from suspension at the beginning of last year, with neither Ross or his guests allowed to swear even mildly on the show. Although there have still been some very interesting and amusing interviews conducted, Ross's interview style has suffered a little for becoming too stiff, with Ross not always able to relax and be himself.

Furthermore, it is likely that the straw that broke the camel's back was the decision to pre-record Ross's Saturday morning Radio 2 show. Personally, I thought this was a big mistake and it was a decision that neither Ross nor his radio show have recovered from. The great selling point of Ross's show was the spontaneity and energy that his live radio programme offered. Yes, at times there were caustic comments and banter that would have upset the type of people that go out of their way to look for offence. But the show was the perfect way to lie in on a Saturday morning and get you in the mood for the weekend. Once the show became pre-recorded, the edginess and spontaneity associated with the show was drained out.

In public, Ross seemed unabashed so far as this was concerned and even said that it was good that he could pre-record the show as he could spend more time with his children at the weekend. In private though, you somewhat suspect that Ross knew this arrangement could not be sustained. There was no comeback and the longer he stayed at the BBC, the more he would be muzzled. A parting was to be inevitable, the question would just be when.

This is not a bad time for Jonathan Ross to make a career change. Ross is 50 years old this year and he can look upon himself as one of television's great survivors, given that he first appeared on our screens over 20 years ago as the host of Channel 4's late night chat show "The Last Resort". Ross is sometimes perceived as an arrogant man by some sections of the public, but the name of his first television project is actually a prime example of his self-depracating nature, given that he only stepped in front of the camera when everyone else who had been asked had said no.

Due to the current economic situation that is being faced the world over, I think you will see a shift from the days when top light entertainment and comedy stars will enter in to "golden handcuffs" arrangements with networks and you will see more performers wanting the autonomy to pick and choose what projects they take on with whom without being tied to a contract. The BBC continues to have some performers that are in a tied arrangement, most notably Graham Norton, but I would anticipate there being a reduction in these arrangements over the course of time.

There has been some talk that Jonathan Ross's future may be outside of this country and that he may particularly be courted Stateside. After all, Ross has interviewed many of Hollywood's A-listers on both his chat show and on the Film programme and appears to have a good rapport with his subjects. I can see this school of thought, especially as the template for Ross's chat show is far closer to the type of talk show that David Letterman and Jay Leno have presented over the pond than it is to the more conventional, stiff Parky-esque British template of chat. However, Ross is a huge animal lover who owns three dogs as well as a number of other exotic pets and so I doubt he would want to contemplate putting pets in quarantine in order to crack America for a sustained period. Maybe like Cat Deeley he could divide his time between both countries, but I think there will be other projects to occupy his time closer to home.

From looking around the message boards, it seems that Ross has made a lot of enemies with the British public and it may take time for him to rebuild his reputation. Perhaps with that in mind, his best approach may be to avoid ubiquity in the months after his BBC contract expires in the summer but instead to pick and choose his projects carefully. There are certain types of show that Ross has not really ventured into before, such as travel programmes and game shows (apart from the famous Only Fools & Horses Christmas special) and I could see his agent being approached to ask for Ross's involvement in these types of show. The programme that Ross did on Japanese culture for BBC3 a few years ago was both informative and entertaining and I could see him using his wit and irreverence to good effect in travelog type programmes in the way Clive James used to.

Ross's main passions though are the movies and comics and so you would expect his future career projects to have a focus on these subjects. The BBC may have dumped Ross for now, but there is definitely a market for other networks to approach Ross with a view to him presenting a film interview type programme. Some of Ross's best interviews have been with film stars and his knowledge of the big screen is exceptional. Just because the door at the BBC has closed, I very much doubt that we have seen the end of the Jonathan Ross story. It might just be that like Noel Edmonds, he spends some time in the wilderness before enjoying a renaissance in his mid-50s as a result of landing a project that is a hit with the British public, as Edmonds managed with Deal Or No Deal.

At the moment, Ross is a convenient emblem for what is wrong with the country among people who are down on their luck. Just as the bankers are despised for being paid obscene bonuses when their investments have failed, so Ross's stock has dropped because he has been identified as overpaid, overrated and over here. Overexposure is more of an issue now than in the past due to the intense cult of celebrity that exists in the media. But you do not just become a bad performer overnight and a change of environment with greater licence to be himself again might just give the great JR the kickstart his career is in need of.

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.