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.

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

Greetings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The big E

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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