Hello again readers. Hope you have been keeping well since I last posted on these pages and that you enjoyed lighting a few sparklers and indulging in some trick or treating. Well, there have been some newsworthy developments since I last let myself loose at the keyboard, so let's get down to business.
Joe on....
Royal Mail reaching agreement with workers so avoiding further strikes until after Christmas
Common sense appears to have prevailed on this score. From what I have read and what I have heard of the reasons for the dispute, I do feel that the Royal Mail workers have had valid grievances with their management, particularly in view of the management's proposed plans to replace existing workers with machines that can do their jobs for "efficiency" purposes. Such a move is not restricted to Royal Mail of course, and all businesses have a duty to try and run efficiently. Nonetheless, in times of economic uncertainty, it is quite natural that fears of redundancies are going to be raised.
However, the industrial action has not done anyone any favours and was becoming a very messy affair. The sympathies that the general public had with postal workers was dissipating with every strike due to the inconvenience that the public have faced on days when strikes have taken place. The affair has also been very damaging to Royal Mail's reputation with businesses and custom has been lost due to the unreliable service offered all the while industrial action has been occurring. While the consumer does not presently have the choice of using any carrier other than Royal Mail, this is not the case for businesses, where there are an abundance of couriers that can carry mail and packages. Having lost customers while industrial action has been taking place, peace now breaking out between Royal Mail managers and staff is unlikely to result in these customers returning.
It is good news, however, that further strikes now appear to have been averted until after Christmas. Disruption to postal deliveries at the time of year when consumers use the post in its greatest volume during the course of the year would have resulted in a complete loss of sympathy for the posties' plight among the public at large and the damage to Royal Mail's reputation would then be beyond the point of no return. As it is, much work needs to be done to restore this reputation and while there is currently a temporary peace, this may prove to be an uneasy one in the long run if managers do not acceed to the union's demands or if the two parties are not willing to meet each other halfway.
One thing that would appear to be a certainty now is that, in the very likely event of a Conservative Government being elected next spring, the Royal Mail service will be fast tracked to privatisation. David Cameron has been very critical of the Government's laissez faire stance in the handling of the postal strikes and he has adopted an aggressive tone rather than one that would suggest he would look to be conciliatory should the disputes spill over into next year. Privatisation has always been a favoured policy of the Conservatives and anything that removes barriers to entry and encourages a free market is music to their ears. Whether these freedoms would be at the cost to employee relations remains to be seen, but the industrial action that has already taken place has already ensured that Royal Mail's reputation as a business has taken a battering.
The Daily Mail's comments about Stephen Gately
Another month and another story of a Daily Mail columnist making vitriolic and vindictive comments. That such comments were made would not normally be newsworthy given that the creation of negative energy is almost a reflex action among Daily Mail's largely middle England leading article writers. However, the Mail surpassed itself this time by breaking one of the unwritten ethical codes. Namely, to speak ill of the dead.
Stephen Gately had not even been taken from this world for a week when Jan Moir chose to share her ill thought out words with a couple of million Daily Mail readers. Choosing to criticise aspects of a dead person's lifestyle in a constructive way might well have been acceptable had a few months passed by, but Moir's comments came within one week of Gately's demise and her critique was anything but constructive.
While it is natural to find it unusual that a supposedly healthy 33 year old man should die so suddenly without any prior warning signs, it should also be remembered that a post-mortem had been carried out which had concluded that Stephen Gately had died of natural causes, as a result of a build-up of fluid in his lungs. This would seem to have been a very rare condition, but one which, unbeknown to Gately himself, would have meant he had a ticking time bomb inside his body which meant that at any time he could go to sleep at night and not wake up in the morning, as appears to have happened.
By questioning the events that had occurred in the hours prior to Gately's death, where Gately had been out socialising with his civil husband and with a Bulgarian gentleman who ended up finding Gately deceased, Jan Moir not only showed a lack of respect to the parties concerned and their families, but she also appeared to call into question the verdict of the post-mortem without being qualified to counter this verdict with any personal or professional insight. Unless Moir has had previous experience of having been a pathologist prior to becoming a Fleet Street scribe then she is not qualified in any way to call into question a qualified medical opinion.
Moir came out on the defensive after the Press Complaints Commission website buckled under the strain of complaints once her opinions became public knowledge. She was adamant that she was not homophobic and that she had previously been a fervent supporter of gay marriage. Leaving aside that previous Moir musings would suggest that her stance on these subjects is slightly different to how she perceives them to be, I think that there is a danger that this episode is seen as abhorrent most for a lack of tolerance towards other people's sexual lifestyle preferences, when the greatest crime was to speak ill of a dead person when they had not even been buried or cremated at the time of going to the press.
It is perhaps understandable, however, that homophobic overtones were particularly highlighted in the aftermath of these comments becoming public domain. The popular press has reported that intolerance towards homosexuals is on the increase and have used some recent unsavoury events in Trafalgar Square as an example of this. In truth, I'm not sure whether intolerance is really becoming more prevalent again, more that it has remained there under the surface among a minority of society. One has to remember that homosexuality remained illegal in the UK until the end of the 1960s and while tolerance has come on leaps and bounds in the past 40 years, acceptance of lifestyle changes among some more cynical sections of the public remains difficult to swallow. The battle is being won, but Moir's diatribe and Nick Griffin's recent comments that some people found same sex couples kissing "repulsive" (pots, kettles Nick, pots, kettles son!) have highlighted the end victory is still some way off.
Nick Griffin's performance on Question Time
It was reported in the immediate aftermath of Griffin's controversial appearance on Question Time that 22 per cent of people surveyed would consider voting for the British National Party. While this revelation no doubt resulted in some considered observers spitting their morning coffee out in worry and disgust, I was not unduly concerned by this statistic.
Surveys are not always a reliable way of gauging the public's opinion. For a start, we are not privy to how the question was phrased to suit the agenda. If the question was phrased in such a way to make the question a leading question that would prompt a particular response, then it is perhaps not surprising that over 1 in 5 of those surveyed would not rule out putting a cross in the box of the British National Party when next confronted with a ballot paper. Added to which, what these reports do not tell us is either the size of the audience sampled or the location of where they were sampled.
If 5,000 people were surveyed across a number of the UK's largest cities, then there may be greater cause for concern. The fact that the results were announced so soon after the programmed was aired, however, would suggest that the sample audience was not high. If only 50 people were surveyed, then it would only require 11 people to say they would be willing to vote for the BNP in order for the 22 per cent to be met. If the questions were asked on the streets of Burnley or Blackburn on the Friday morning after the transmission, one expects the results would also be more distorted than if the survey was conducted in Plymouth.
Having watched the programme, I do not see how Griffin's performance can have significantly aided his credibility. Whilst Griffin's nervousness was understandable under the circumstances, his lack of charm and somewhat evasive attitude will surely not have won him many new admirers. Some of what Griffin said was also tantamount to scoring an own goal. His comments about being acquainted with someone that was aligned to a "non-violent section of the Ku-Klux Klan" bordered on the comedic, all the more so given that Griffin seemingly did not appear to realise what was wrong with what he had said. Griffin did little to dispel the notion that far from seeking to represent an electorate that is down on its luck and lacking a voice in a changing Britain, his agenda is merely self-serving and a means of promoting his own prejudices.
Griffin felt that the programme had showed him in a bad light and that he had been subjected to a lynch mob. Really though, what was Griffin expecting when being offered a platform to appear on the programme? Given that many people did not want Griffin to appear in the first place, he should be grateful to have been given a forum to put his views across. That he did not use this forum effectively is no-one's fault other than his own. It would seem that Griffin felt that the audience had been deliberately cherry picked in order to take him to task, given the nature of his extreme views. But, surely Griffin must have known what he was letting himself in for when he agreed to appear.
The Question Time audience is not deliberately chosen, the audience for its shows is comprised of people that buy tickets. Once it was publicised that a bigot with white supremacist views would be appearing on Question Time, it surely comes as no surprise that a reasonable percentage of the audience that purchased a ticket would be from ethnic minority groups diametrically opposed to Griffin's viewpoints. If that reality was not to Griffin's liking, well hard cheese. In truth though, while the audience's contempt for Griffin was largely overt, the brickbats he faced were relatively tame.
The only sympathy that the public may have felt towards Griffin was how he was treated with contempt by his fellow panellists. Jack Straw's allowed himself to become too emotional in the early exchanges on the programme and that led to a hammy and weak performance from the Government's representative thereafter. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats' representative Chris Huhne largely cut an anonymous, peripheral figure. The only panellist that emerged with an enhanced reputation from the show was the Conservative representative Baroness Warsi, attired with a large poppy, who not only put Griffin in his place but also informed Straw of how Labour's immigration policies had impacted upon the BNP gaining popularity in the first place.
The issue of immigration is a very delicate and thorny subject and it is one which clearly needs addressing sensibly and rationally. This is perhaps something to talk about in more detail some other time. But in summary for now, the suggestion of it being time to "close the door" in terms of the UK's national borders would not be practical, legal or beneficial in the long term. It does not help when national newspapers run stories suggesting the population will increase by 15 million within 20 years, when there is no concrete evidence to suggest that it will. We live in a voyeuristic, material driven world and while more people will come to live in the United Kingdom, so too people will choose to emigrate to warmer, fairer isles.
The current wave of protectionism and looking after number one that people feel due to the current uncertainty economically provides some explanation as to why the BNP have been some people's protest vote party of choice. But, the fact is that they remain a minority party who represent fewer than 2 per cent of the population. Griffin's appearance on Question Time will have increased awareness of the BNP's actual agenda and Griffin's lack of coherent answers to the questions that needed asking will surely have done little to aid his or his party's popularity.
Russell Slade's sacking as Brighton manager
On first consideration, Slade's sacking would appear a trifle harsh. Only six months ago, the former Yeovil Town manager had saved Brighton from relegation to League Two after it had appeared a near certainty with only six games to go. Four wins from Brighton's final six matches ensured that the great escape became a reality.
The problem that Slade perhaps faced was one of perception. His managerial career hitherto had been spent at such unfashionable footballing outposts as Yeovil, Grimsby and Scarborough. It mattered not that Slade had led Yeovil to a League One play-off final nor that he had led Scarborough to the fourth round of the FA Cup and a narrow defeat to Chelsea, but his name was not a high profile one. Had he come into the Brighton job with some previous experience at Premier League and Championship level then his stay of execution would likely have been longer.
Brighton's season has not gone to plan so far, although any pundits that had Brighton down amongst the promotion candidates were always sadly misguided. In a division that contains a number of former Premier League teams among its number, a top half consolidatory finish for Brighton this season would be an acceptable campaign. Until the Falmer Stadium opens for business in the summer of 2011, Brighton simply have to ensure they remain at League One level.
It is this critical requirement which also contributed to Slade's departure. Brighton simply cannot contemplate starting life at Falmer as a League Two club, as this would be seriously damaging to their finances. Although Brighton have two thirds of the league campaign still to run to climb away from danger, they recently spurned an opportunity to take points from back-to-back home matches against mid-table opposition. Brighton instead took only one point from those two matches, conceding five goals in the process. The board decided to act in the knowledge that Brighton now face four consecutive matches against former Premier League teams in Southampton, Leeds, Charlton and Norwich. By the time those matches are completed, it is likely Brighton will be embedded in the League One relegation zone.
Brighton's wretched form at their unloved temporary home, Withdean Stadium is a major reason for their current struggles. Five defeats from eight home matches this campaign is a tale of woe. It has not helped that Brighton's plight has been one of self-destruction with several red cards having been brandished to Brighton players this season. This has led to Brighton rarely having a settled team, particularly in defence, where injuries have also taken their toll. While discipline is an individual responsibility, where there is a recurring problem, this suggests that there is a shortcoming that the manager is not addressing. Slade maybe required more time to stamp his authority in this regard, but football being the cut-throat, results oriented business it now is, Slade was not to be afforded this time.
As ever, when a manager's sacking is announced, there is a frenzy of activity about who will replace him and there has been the usual mixture of crazy, leftfield choices and managers who are out of work simply because they repeatedly left a trail of failure and destruction in their previous jobs. The best candidate for the job, Steve Coppell, has sadly ruled out a return to Brighton, with the job at Hull City possibly being what he has designs on. With Coppell crossed off the list, Dennis Wise appears to be a favourite with the Brighton chairman Tony Bloom, but Wise is a difficult man to warm to. Gareth Southgate's recent sacking by Middlesbrough makes him a candidate but his comparative managerial greenness is not ideal in the predicament Brighton find themselves in, added to which, his playing connections with Crystal Palace will not be forgiven easily.
Beyond these names, there have been some other suggestions put forward, ranging from the delusional suggestion that Alan Curbishley would take the job to a clutch of mediocre lower division managers being linked to the post. Personally, I think Brighton ideally need to go for a manager that has had a couple of previous managerial jobs and who is used to managing at League One level, rather than someone that played and managed at a higher level and who would find difficult to relate to players of a limited ability. Exeter City's Paul Tisdale is a bright, young manager who has done well with limited resources at the Devonian club, but whether Brighton would be able to prise Tisdale away from the South-West, or indeed whether Brighton would be willing and able to pay compensation for his services are another matter.
What is important is that Brighton get a manager appointed quickly. The longer Brighton go on without making an appointment, so they become more of a ship without an anchor. Results need to be forthcoming immediately and the last thing any new manager needs is to be playing catch-up. The next incumbent will at least be able to bring in some fresh blood when the transfer window opens in January, as well as ship out players that are surplus to his requirements. That way, whatever the end result is in May 2010, by then the next manager will have moulded their own team.
Showing posts with label post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label post. Show all posts
Saturday, 7 November 2009
Sunday, 11 October 2009
A changing of the seasons and another year in the bag
Well hello again everyone. You might wonder what has kept me so long. It is over 3 months since I last posted in this parish. Well, like the MPs and the school teachers, I decided to have a little break from writing over the summer, although my period of writer's block has lingered on for longer than I had anticipated. Speaking of summer, did we have one? I think we should all make a beeline for the Met Office and demand a refund. Those horrible depressing days of darkness at 4:00 pm are sadly only just around the corner now. And then, whisper it quietly, the dreaded C word is looming onto the horizon.
Since I was last here, I have celebrated another birthday, although I'm not sure that reaching the grand age of 31 merits a street party. Those foot loose and fancy free days of all night drinking and boisterous behaviour have now been replaced with thoughts of mortgages and sheds. Well, fortunately, I can at least put those thoughts on hold for a little while longer given that I rent my first floor flat and do not have a garden to maintain, let alone have space to accommodate a shed.
Given my long hiatus from my keyboard, there have been so many talking points that have emerged in the past 3 months from the worlds of current affairs, entertainment, business and sport. So let's not waste any further time, here's my take on some of the burning hot potatoes that people will talking about around the water cooler or the photocopier at the moment.
Joe's take on....
Royal Mail imploding
Royal Mail's current malaise is not a sudden problem, it has been a troubled organisation for several years. First things first, I am not an advocate of industrial action and in terms of demonstrating employee value, refusing to work is only likely to intensify the already contemptuous relationship that exists between your average postie and the man in the suit that runs the mail service in this country.
What needs to be considered though is how has Royal Mail got itself into such a terrible state, why is it that there are so many postmen and women that are out of love with their job and feel completely marginalised? I think as always there is an element of people finding it difficult to cope with change, which is not surprising. Technological advancement has been so rapid in the past 10 years or so and there will be some senior postmen who will have been getting up at the crack of dawn and risking getting their fingers ripped off by some overexcited Yorkshire Terrier for possibly 10 or 20 years in some cases.
But I think the other factor is that the frontline workers, be they postmen doing their rounds or the man driving a van with the optional extra of a black and white cat, do not trust or respect some of the top management in Royal Mail because they have not worked their way up through the ranks to become top management and so they are not equipped to understand the challenges and nuances of a postman's lot from any personal experience as they have not donned a light blue short sleeved shirt or worn the baggy grey shorts in the summer months in a professional capacity.
This can be shown at the very top of the chain. Royal Mail's Chief Executive Adam Crozier was not a postman in a previous career, he was in fact previously the head of the Football Association that installed Sven Goran Eriksson as England manager and has also previously worked for the advertising giants Saatchi and Saatchi. Mr Crozier's credentials as a decision maker are respectable, but he is not in a position to empathise with the shop floor. Top managers have also made some bad and expensive decisions, not least the costly and ultimately failed rebranding of the service to be called Consignia earlier this decade.
But beyond the very top management, there is also a situation where many workers can progress through Royal Mail without ever gaining frontline experience. As is the case in the rail sector, Royal Mail has a graduate employment scheme and often newly honoured graduates find themselves on a fast track system where they can end up in very senior positions in a matter of years. I have no truck with graduates, hey I was one myself once! Nonetheless, it is human nature that some of the more hardened, cynical postal workers will be far from happy to see some upstart coming in to a position of responsibility without having worked their way up in the conventional way of having been a postman first and a manager later, especially when they are given a position of power which directly affects the workers.
At management level, I do not think it is unjust to say that some of the decision makers have got complacent and thought that people would always be dependent on Royal Mail's service. The truth is that Royal Mail is not the only carrier any more, albeit it is the only conventional option for distributing personal post. So if delivery targets were not being met, some heads could possibly roll, but it would be pretty small fry because the non-business customer couldn't take their custom elsewhere. Except that the volume of personal mail delivery has decreased in recent times as people tend to embrace technology. People no longer pay their phone bill by sending a cheque in the post, they can set up a direct debit. Other payments can be made via Paypal or online banking. There's even an alternative to sending celebration cards in the form an online animated e-card. And sending a letter in the post to an old friend happens far less given the myriad of options that there are for keeping in contact on a more impersonal level in a hectic schedule, such as Facebook, text messaging or an e-mail.
It came as no surprise to me this week that Amazon have considered severing their ties with Royal Mail to deliver their goods. In fact I have a personal experience of Royal Mail's shortcomings with regards to delivering Amazon goods. Almost three weeks ago, I ordered 2 books from Amazon which should have arrived 2 or 3 days later. I am still awaiting these goods to arrive. Having contacted Amazon, I was advised that Amazon do not have a way of tracking items that are being delivered by Royal Mail. Therefore, my books could be sat in some pigeonhole at a Royal Mail sorting office somewhere in deepest Surrey and no-one will be any the wiser.
I have placed orders with Amazon on numerous occasions over the years and can honestly say that I've never previously encountered any difficulty in receiving their goods. The delivery has always been prompt and the items have been present and correct. Amazon only use Royal Mail for delivering some of their items, particularly books. When I ordered an iPod from Amazon earlier this summer for example, it was delivered by another courier company that Amazon use and in fact, the delivery turnaround time was excellent.
If Royal Mail cannot guarantee reliability to its business customers and their end users and there is no way of tracking progress of items they are delivering, then it stands to reason that more businesses will choose other carriers to distribute their mail. Given that there are proposed strikes during arguably the busiest time of the year for the mail services, in the build-up to Christmas, it is only natural that businesses will look at other options to ensure their post is delivered without delay. For the average Joe or Joanna that is posting their Christmas cards, they may just have to don their mittens and hand deliver the ones to recipients that are within walking distance.
Is this the beginning of the end for Royal Mail? Well, I think that is dramatic. I expect there to be a change of Government next year and I would expect any Conservative to get tough with any public services that are not performing. Royal Mail being privatised has been discussed for some time, but the Tories have always been the party of privatisation and deregulation. This could have good and bad effects. It could lead to stronger leadership, but equally it will probably also mean greater distance and contempt between postal workers and managers that have been appointed from big business. Certainly though, Royal Mail has to buck up its ideas at all layers of its organisation otherwise it could find itself playing out a slow, painful death.
The Sun endorsing the Conservative Party
This development seemed to raise quite a few eyebrows although I've got to be honest, I felt it was a matter of when and not if The Sun would change its allegiances.
It has to be remembered that The Sun is regarded as the common man's (and woman's) newspaper and therefore it likes to pass itself off as the mouthpiece of the public at large and its tone and opinion is likely to be reflective of the current public mood. At the moment, the average man or woman with any passing interest in politics is disillusioned with the Labour Government and particularly unhappy with Gordon Brown's lack of dynamic leadership at a time when unemployment is high and the economy is in catastrophic debt. As the Conservative Party are the only credible alternatives to Labour to govern the country, it stands to reason that the public and The Sun will back David Cameron and the Conservatives.
This is not necessarily a ringing endorsement of David Cameron's leadership, but more a scathing illustration of how apathetic the public are with the present Government and politics in general, especially in the light of the expenses scandal. If the public were given a straight choice of Gordon Brown and the Honey Monster to be leader of the country next spring, it is likely that the latter would get the nod. Cameron himself still has much to prove, especially if his rather empty and anaemic speech at last week's Tory Party conference was anything to go by. The Tories are deliberately playing their cards close to their chest and not divulging what their policies are and how they will solve Britain's problems. This is partly because they do not want Labour to steal their ideas and pass them off as their own, but also because they know some of their policies which involve inevitable cutbacks will prove unpopular.
The Conservatives' "tough times call for tough measures" attitude is likely to match the mood of the public at the moment and as people grow more self-serving and insular during hard times, they are likely to win the day. But the honeymoon period won't last forever. The Sun have always tended to be a newspaper that leans to the right. Even in its years of backing Labour, there were many key issues on which The Sun's editorial was more aligned with Tory policy rather than Labour, particularly on issues such as Europe, asylum and law and order. With the present dissatisfaction economically, socially and politically towards the Government and the Prime Minister, the Conservatives' hardline attitude was always likely to sway The Sun back into their arms.
From Labour's point of view, The Sun's defection will be a blow but not one that will cause them too many sleepless nights. The Sun may be the newspaper with the highest circulation, but overall newspaper circulation has been greatly diminished since the halcyon days of the 1980s and early 1990s when the power of the tabloids was at an all time high with the circulation war that existed at the time. The advent of 24 hour rolling news and newspapers' websites allowing free access to the news means that less people have the time or inclination to read a daily newspaper from back to front. No doubt The Sun will still proclaim that it was responsible for the Conservatives' ascent to power coming next spring, but the Labour horse had run lame before The Sun changed saddles. Labour insiders would be more worried if their traditional newspaper The Mirror decided to change its allegiance.
Chris Evans becoming the Radio 2 breakfast show host
Chris Evans seems to be one of those media personalities that really polarises opinion, a real Marmite figure. There are those that proclaim him a genius of his craft, that connects with his audience and energises them. Then there are those who regard him as a laddish, egomaniac who is wrapped up in his own inflated sense of self-worth.
There is no doubt that Evans has shown traits in the past that have made him enemies. However, I have always been a fan of the ginger cropped one and think that not only was he the logical heir apparent to fill Wogan's size elevens, but he was also the only choice. Evans knows the breakfast audience better than anybody, having presided over the Radio 1 breakfast show for 3 years, Virgin Radio's breakfast show for 2 years and having also presented the Big Breakfast on Channel 4 during that programme's most successful times. Breakfast radio is about energising your audience, waking them up and getting them ready for the challenges of the day ahead. Evans's early morning banter, bar room style games and musical tastes are exactly what is called for at that time of the day.
The BBC knew Evans was the man they wanted to replace Wogan eventually when they brought him back to radio over 2 years ago in the drivetime slot. Evans's stock at the time had dropped to an all time low. His previous excesses and inflated ego meant that he lost everything, his reputation, his friends and his career. For a short time, Evans was selling jewellery on a stall in Covent Garden in order to make ends meet. Because Evans has experienced losing everything, it gives him more perspective now and the mistakes he made in his younger days are unlikely to be repeated. It is worth remembering that Evans is now 43 years old, is married and has a young child. His life is back on track and so he is now more mellow.
Of course, Evans won't be to the liking of some of Radio 2's more traditional listeners who I expect would much rather have the comfy cardigan wearing Ken Bruce in the breakfast slot. If Chris Evans's high octane, energising approach is the radio equivalent of Red Bull, then Bruce's more gentle, soothing style of broadcasting is a nice cup of coco. Bruce's present slot of following the Breakfast Show is exactly the right time slot for him. Radio 2 has changed in recent years and particularly has changed with regards to its music policy. There are many listeners to the network under the age of 30 now, which would have been inconceivable in the past, and this has led to Radio 2 becoming the most listened to station in the country.
The only real challenger to Evans as Wogan's replacement would have been Jonathan Ross. But, quite apart from the fact that I don't think Wossy would have wanted to give up the school run five days a week in order to present the show, any aspirations he may have had to present the Breakfast Show will have been cut down to size in the aftermath of the Andrew Sachs affair last year which caused Radio 2 much damage. It was noticeable how it was Evans who rallied the troops in the days that followed the media hysteria when that story broke and it is possible that this did not do his cause any harm.
The Chris Evans that people will remember from radio in the 1990s has matured like a good wine. Sure, his show can still sometimes be edgy and it is possible that some female listeners could still find some aspects of his show a touch too blokey for their tastes. But Evans is a winner and he is very savvy when it comes to knowing what his audience's demands are. He knows he has a tough act to follow but he also has the confidence to fill Wogan's shoes and not be intimidated or be overly concerned if people are critical about him initially. Chris Moyles' audience share could well be under threat.
Golf and rugby sevens being added to the Olympic roster and Rio De Janeiro being awarded the 2016 games
I always tend to believe that there should be two criteria that should be applied to determine whether a sport should be included in the Olympics. Firstly, is the Olympic competition the pinnacle of that sport? Secondly, will the competition be won by the best competitor in the field? To my mind, golf fails both of these tests.
I would not pretend that golf is one of my favourite sports. I can watch the Ryder Cup and sometimes will follow the Masters or the Open Championship and I respect the fact that golf does throw up some tests that other sports do not, such as competing against the elements. But golf is hardly an athletic sport, as witnessing Colin Montgomerie's chest and waistline will be testament to. Added to which, could the Olympic golf competition ever possibly be the blue riband event in that sport? I really don't think it could be, for a professional golfer all that matters is winning one of the four majors or playing in the Ryder Cup.
Of course, the argument that you could throw up at this stage is if you take this line of thought, what business do tennis, football or basketball have being in the Olympics, given that the Olympic tournament is barely a footnote in the schedules for those respective sports. My answer to this would be that they should not be in the Olympics either because they are not the pinnacle of their sport. Tennis players care far more for winning Wimbledon or the US Open, while the Olympic football tournament is an irrelevance in an already packed calendar. The Olympics started out as the ultimate amateur sporting event and while it would be naive to expect these corinthian values to be upheld as purely in modern, monetarily dictated times, it does not seem right that super rich, super successful sportsmen like Roger Federer or Shaquille O'Neal should be competing on that stage.
To my mind, the Olympics are about sports that you do not see on television very often outside of the four year cycle of the Olympics. Swimming, weightlifting, rowing, hockey, cycling, volleyball, badminton, these are the sports that the Olympics are really all about and in every single one of those sports, an Olympic gold is the absolute pinnacle of achievement in their sport. Of course, above all, the Olympics are about the track and field programme and the annals of sporting history have filled with the achievements and sob stories on the track and on the green expanse in Olympic arenas.
The only way I can see golf being compatible with an Olympic competition would be if it were strictly for amateur golfers, much as boxing in the Olympics is only for those yet to turn professional. This would sit more comfortably, but even so, I still do not think golf is a good fit for the Olympics because it is not necessarily won by the best player. You only need to look at golf's majors in recent years to see that there is no sport more open to big upsets and unlikely winners who have their 15 minutes of fame only to disappear into oblivion. I suppose those that like a gallant underdog story would be happy to see golf included on this basis, but I prefer sport to be a test of technical supremacy and because of golf's tendency to be something of a lottery, I feel it should not be included in the Olympics.
As far as rugby sevens is concerned, I can see more reasoning for its inclusion given that there is not a major alternative competition for that form of rugby. There is the Hong Kong sevens tournament, but I would expect an Olympic gold to be regarded as a greater achievement and it would give 7-a-side rugby a greater profile than it presently receives. On that basis, I am in favour of its inclusion.
Concerning the choice of Rio as the host city of 2016, this was pleasing to see. South America has not previously hosted an Olympic Games in its 120 years of existence and is therefore the only continent that has not previously hosted the Games. A summer games in Brazil will throw up a carnival atmosphere full of glamour and colour and I am sure Rio will prove to be an inspired choice. There may some concerns about where Rio will find the money to host the Games and whether it is ethical for so much money to be committed to the short term gain of hosting the Olympics when much poverty remains in some of Rio's less photographed areas. These concerns are valid, but the Olympic carnival coming to town should at least create much needed job opportunities.
Much was made of Chicago's failure to secure the Games after being heavily backed by Barack Obama and whether this was an indictment on Obama. The answer to this is no. Chicago did not get awarded the Olympics because it was one of the weaker bids and the United States have already hosted the Olympics twice since 1980. It is good to see some equality and South America has waited long enough for its chance and so on this occasion, Rio getting the nod appears the right decision.
BNP being invited to appear on Question Time
I am a great believer in free speech and I think that it is perfectly acceptable for even the crankiest and craziest of believers to have a platform for voicing their opinions, so long as their opinions are not breaking any laws.
Where the BNP are concerned, the controversial and bigoted nature of their party line is such that it could be argued that some of their opinions come very close to breaking laws of racial intolerance and hatred. However, I am pleased that they will be allowed a chance to speak on Question Time because it will actually give the public a chance to see what their policies actually are, or more to the point, to see how their distinct lack of coherent policies are papered over by self-pity and vitriolic bile.
Because the BNP only receive a very small amount of airtime because of the extreme nature of their views, this in some ways makes them more appealing as a protest party to some of the electorate that feel that the more conventional political parties have failed to serve anyone other than themselves. The trouble is that because the BNP does not get a place at a public forum very often, people may feel that their views are actually tapping into the public mood and that they could be possible knights in shining armour in making tough decisions to make Britain great again.
By allowing the BNP on to Question Time and giving their leader Nick Griffin opportunity to expand on his party's thoughts on Britain and their possible solutions to its ills, I think this can only be good in properly educating anyone that is tempted to vote for them that what they actually stand for is backward and repulsive and that their views have no place in a forward thinking world.
Oasis splitting up
The only surprise in this announcement was that Oasis actually lasted this long! Surviving fifteen years and seven studio albums of sibling rivalry and in-fighting has in fact been quite a sterling achievement.
I have been a fan of Oasis's right from their beginnings and What's The Story Morning Glory was in fact the first album I ever remember buying. I have all of their studio albums and although I would say that they never consistently matched the quality of their first two albums in the decade or so that followed, Oasis did continue to produce some good material well into the naughties. Their final studio album, Dig Out Your Soul, I felt was a slight disappointment and perhaps not the most fitting way to bow out. Nonetheless, they will remain relevant in 20 years time as their songs will still be played on the radio and they will continue to influence new Indie bands just as their influence is evident in some of today's big bands, such as the Arctic Monkeys and Kasabian, both in terms of the music and the attitude.
Oasis have in the past been accused of being a derivative band that borrowed much from The Beatles. There is some truth in this, but it is a rather simplistic school of thought. Yes, The Beatles certainly influenced Oasis's music, but listen to their back catalogue carefully, and they were far from their only influence. Acts such as the Rolling Stones, Kinks, T-Rex, Stone Roses, The Jam, Sex Pistols and even Nirvana have also had some influence on the Oasis sound over the years. Music is often about being influenced by your predecessors' sounds but enhancing them for a modern audience. Oasis did this better than anyone during the 1990s, although they perhaps lost some of their relevance and mojo after the turn of the millennium.
Noel and Liam Gallagher do not strike me as the kind of men who have much place for regrets in their life, but if they did, they may perhaps wish that they had been able to break America in the way that The Beatles managed to in the 1960s, and indeed, how Coldplay have managed to in recent years. The Americans never quite took to Oasis's bravado and that didn't help their cause. However, I feel that there is something quintessentially British about Noel Gallagher's songwriting and the anthemic nature of Oasis's sound which perhaps the American audience never quite got. Oasis are probably the biggest stadium rock crowd pleasers to emerge from this country since Queen and perhaps it is not coincidence that Queen also never made huge waves in the United States, despite being huge in other far out places.
The brothers Gallagher will now surely go their separate ways and embark on different careers. Although Oasis are often regarded as primarily Noel's project, it is worth remembering that he was the last person to join the original line-up and in actual fact, it was Liam that formed the band under their original name of The Rain. So, by rights, Liam could carry on with the band but without Noel on songwriting duties. On recent albums, some songwriting has been shared out and so Noel's departure in this respect need not be terminal. However, there would be some complications in terms of performing Oasis's back catalogue live given that the public would demand to hear the classics, all of which were written by Noel. Any future Oasis material without Noel would lack credibility in the same way that Guns N' Roses's return without Slash just was not the same.
Noel's career is far from over and I expect a solo album or two will materialise before very long. I would expect Noel's solo sound to follow a similar pattern to that of his mentor and friend, Paul Weller. Weller was an angry young man in The Jam but the style and sound of his solo career has been a much more mellow affair, reflecting his advancing in years. The Oasis songs on which Noel has provided lead vocals, such as The Masterplan, Little By Little and Half the World Away have tended to be more gentle strum-along affairs with well considered lyrics and I would expect more of the same from his solo projects, although like Weller, he may feel more willing to experiment with other sounds that would not have sounded right on an Oasis record.
Liam meanwhile I can see taking a backseat from music for a while. He is heavily involved in producing his own brand of clothing and I think the end of the line for Oasis could well result in an expansion in his clothing lines. Maybe one day Liam and Noel will patch things up and Oasis could provide the great comeback tour of 2015, but I would not go betting the family silver on that eventuality. Whatever happens in the future, you cannot ignore Oasis's past and their legacy to British music will live on through radio airplay and the next generation of bands who will be influenced by their music and their swagger. To borrow the title of my favourite Oasis song, I believe they will live forever.
Since I was last here, I have celebrated another birthday, although I'm not sure that reaching the grand age of 31 merits a street party. Those foot loose and fancy free days of all night drinking and boisterous behaviour have now been replaced with thoughts of mortgages and sheds. Well, fortunately, I can at least put those thoughts on hold for a little while longer given that I rent my first floor flat and do not have a garden to maintain, let alone have space to accommodate a shed.
Given my long hiatus from my keyboard, there have been so many talking points that have emerged in the past 3 months from the worlds of current affairs, entertainment, business and sport. So let's not waste any further time, here's my take on some of the burning hot potatoes that people will talking about around the water cooler or the photocopier at the moment.
Joe's take on....
Royal Mail imploding
Royal Mail's current malaise is not a sudden problem, it has been a troubled organisation for several years. First things first, I am not an advocate of industrial action and in terms of demonstrating employee value, refusing to work is only likely to intensify the already contemptuous relationship that exists between your average postie and the man in the suit that runs the mail service in this country.
What needs to be considered though is how has Royal Mail got itself into such a terrible state, why is it that there are so many postmen and women that are out of love with their job and feel completely marginalised? I think as always there is an element of people finding it difficult to cope with change, which is not surprising. Technological advancement has been so rapid in the past 10 years or so and there will be some senior postmen who will have been getting up at the crack of dawn and risking getting their fingers ripped off by some overexcited Yorkshire Terrier for possibly 10 or 20 years in some cases.
But I think the other factor is that the frontline workers, be they postmen doing their rounds or the man driving a van with the optional extra of a black and white cat, do not trust or respect some of the top management in Royal Mail because they have not worked their way up through the ranks to become top management and so they are not equipped to understand the challenges and nuances of a postman's lot from any personal experience as they have not donned a light blue short sleeved shirt or worn the baggy grey shorts in the summer months in a professional capacity.
This can be shown at the very top of the chain. Royal Mail's Chief Executive Adam Crozier was not a postman in a previous career, he was in fact previously the head of the Football Association that installed Sven Goran Eriksson as England manager and has also previously worked for the advertising giants Saatchi and Saatchi. Mr Crozier's credentials as a decision maker are respectable, but he is not in a position to empathise with the shop floor. Top managers have also made some bad and expensive decisions, not least the costly and ultimately failed rebranding of the service to be called Consignia earlier this decade.
But beyond the very top management, there is also a situation where many workers can progress through Royal Mail without ever gaining frontline experience. As is the case in the rail sector, Royal Mail has a graduate employment scheme and often newly honoured graduates find themselves on a fast track system where they can end up in very senior positions in a matter of years. I have no truck with graduates, hey I was one myself once! Nonetheless, it is human nature that some of the more hardened, cynical postal workers will be far from happy to see some upstart coming in to a position of responsibility without having worked their way up in the conventional way of having been a postman first and a manager later, especially when they are given a position of power which directly affects the workers.
At management level, I do not think it is unjust to say that some of the decision makers have got complacent and thought that people would always be dependent on Royal Mail's service. The truth is that Royal Mail is not the only carrier any more, albeit it is the only conventional option for distributing personal post. So if delivery targets were not being met, some heads could possibly roll, but it would be pretty small fry because the non-business customer couldn't take their custom elsewhere. Except that the volume of personal mail delivery has decreased in recent times as people tend to embrace technology. People no longer pay their phone bill by sending a cheque in the post, they can set up a direct debit. Other payments can be made via Paypal or online banking. There's even an alternative to sending celebration cards in the form an online animated e-card. And sending a letter in the post to an old friend happens far less given the myriad of options that there are for keeping in contact on a more impersonal level in a hectic schedule, such as Facebook, text messaging or an e-mail.
It came as no surprise to me this week that Amazon have considered severing their ties with Royal Mail to deliver their goods. In fact I have a personal experience of Royal Mail's shortcomings with regards to delivering Amazon goods. Almost three weeks ago, I ordered 2 books from Amazon which should have arrived 2 or 3 days later. I am still awaiting these goods to arrive. Having contacted Amazon, I was advised that Amazon do not have a way of tracking items that are being delivered by Royal Mail. Therefore, my books could be sat in some pigeonhole at a Royal Mail sorting office somewhere in deepest Surrey and no-one will be any the wiser.
I have placed orders with Amazon on numerous occasions over the years and can honestly say that I've never previously encountered any difficulty in receiving their goods. The delivery has always been prompt and the items have been present and correct. Amazon only use Royal Mail for delivering some of their items, particularly books. When I ordered an iPod from Amazon earlier this summer for example, it was delivered by another courier company that Amazon use and in fact, the delivery turnaround time was excellent.
If Royal Mail cannot guarantee reliability to its business customers and their end users and there is no way of tracking progress of items they are delivering, then it stands to reason that more businesses will choose other carriers to distribute their mail. Given that there are proposed strikes during arguably the busiest time of the year for the mail services, in the build-up to Christmas, it is only natural that businesses will look at other options to ensure their post is delivered without delay. For the average Joe or Joanna that is posting their Christmas cards, they may just have to don their mittens and hand deliver the ones to recipients that are within walking distance.
Is this the beginning of the end for Royal Mail? Well, I think that is dramatic. I expect there to be a change of Government next year and I would expect any Conservative to get tough with any public services that are not performing. Royal Mail being privatised has been discussed for some time, but the Tories have always been the party of privatisation and deregulation. This could have good and bad effects. It could lead to stronger leadership, but equally it will probably also mean greater distance and contempt between postal workers and managers that have been appointed from big business. Certainly though, Royal Mail has to buck up its ideas at all layers of its organisation otherwise it could find itself playing out a slow, painful death.
The Sun endorsing the Conservative Party
This development seemed to raise quite a few eyebrows although I've got to be honest, I felt it was a matter of when and not if The Sun would change its allegiances.
It has to be remembered that The Sun is regarded as the common man's (and woman's) newspaper and therefore it likes to pass itself off as the mouthpiece of the public at large and its tone and opinion is likely to be reflective of the current public mood. At the moment, the average man or woman with any passing interest in politics is disillusioned with the Labour Government and particularly unhappy with Gordon Brown's lack of dynamic leadership at a time when unemployment is high and the economy is in catastrophic debt. As the Conservative Party are the only credible alternatives to Labour to govern the country, it stands to reason that the public and The Sun will back David Cameron and the Conservatives.
This is not necessarily a ringing endorsement of David Cameron's leadership, but more a scathing illustration of how apathetic the public are with the present Government and politics in general, especially in the light of the expenses scandal. If the public were given a straight choice of Gordon Brown and the Honey Monster to be leader of the country next spring, it is likely that the latter would get the nod. Cameron himself still has much to prove, especially if his rather empty and anaemic speech at last week's Tory Party conference was anything to go by. The Tories are deliberately playing their cards close to their chest and not divulging what their policies are and how they will solve Britain's problems. This is partly because they do not want Labour to steal their ideas and pass them off as their own, but also because they know some of their policies which involve inevitable cutbacks will prove unpopular.
The Conservatives' "tough times call for tough measures" attitude is likely to match the mood of the public at the moment and as people grow more self-serving and insular during hard times, they are likely to win the day. But the honeymoon period won't last forever. The Sun have always tended to be a newspaper that leans to the right. Even in its years of backing Labour, there were many key issues on which The Sun's editorial was more aligned with Tory policy rather than Labour, particularly on issues such as Europe, asylum and law and order. With the present dissatisfaction economically, socially and politically towards the Government and the Prime Minister, the Conservatives' hardline attitude was always likely to sway The Sun back into their arms.
From Labour's point of view, The Sun's defection will be a blow but not one that will cause them too many sleepless nights. The Sun may be the newspaper with the highest circulation, but overall newspaper circulation has been greatly diminished since the halcyon days of the 1980s and early 1990s when the power of the tabloids was at an all time high with the circulation war that existed at the time. The advent of 24 hour rolling news and newspapers' websites allowing free access to the news means that less people have the time or inclination to read a daily newspaper from back to front. No doubt The Sun will still proclaim that it was responsible for the Conservatives' ascent to power coming next spring, but the Labour horse had run lame before The Sun changed saddles. Labour insiders would be more worried if their traditional newspaper The Mirror decided to change its allegiance.
Chris Evans becoming the Radio 2 breakfast show host
Chris Evans seems to be one of those media personalities that really polarises opinion, a real Marmite figure. There are those that proclaim him a genius of his craft, that connects with his audience and energises them. Then there are those who regard him as a laddish, egomaniac who is wrapped up in his own inflated sense of self-worth.
There is no doubt that Evans has shown traits in the past that have made him enemies. However, I have always been a fan of the ginger cropped one and think that not only was he the logical heir apparent to fill Wogan's size elevens, but he was also the only choice. Evans knows the breakfast audience better than anybody, having presided over the Radio 1 breakfast show for 3 years, Virgin Radio's breakfast show for 2 years and having also presented the Big Breakfast on Channel 4 during that programme's most successful times. Breakfast radio is about energising your audience, waking them up and getting them ready for the challenges of the day ahead. Evans's early morning banter, bar room style games and musical tastes are exactly what is called for at that time of the day.
The BBC knew Evans was the man they wanted to replace Wogan eventually when they brought him back to radio over 2 years ago in the drivetime slot. Evans's stock at the time had dropped to an all time low. His previous excesses and inflated ego meant that he lost everything, his reputation, his friends and his career. For a short time, Evans was selling jewellery on a stall in Covent Garden in order to make ends meet. Because Evans has experienced losing everything, it gives him more perspective now and the mistakes he made in his younger days are unlikely to be repeated. It is worth remembering that Evans is now 43 years old, is married and has a young child. His life is back on track and so he is now more mellow.
Of course, Evans won't be to the liking of some of Radio 2's more traditional listeners who I expect would much rather have the comfy cardigan wearing Ken Bruce in the breakfast slot. If Chris Evans's high octane, energising approach is the radio equivalent of Red Bull, then Bruce's more gentle, soothing style of broadcasting is a nice cup of coco. Bruce's present slot of following the Breakfast Show is exactly the right time slot for him. Radio 2 has changed in recent years and particularly has changed with regards to its music policy. There are many listeners to the network under the age of 30 now, which would have been inconceivable in the past, and this has led to Radio 2 becoming the most listened to station in the country.
The only real challenger to Evans as Wogan's replacement would have been Jonathan Ross. But, quite apart from the fact that I don't think Wossy would have wanted to give up the school run five days a week in order to present the show, any aspirations he may have had to present the Breakfast Show will have been cut down to size in the aftermath of the Andrew Sachs affair last year which caused Radio 2 much damage. It was noticeable how it was Evans who rallied the troops in the days that followed the media hysteria when that story broke and it is possible that this did not do his cause any harm.
The Chris Evans that people will remember from radio in the 1990s has matured like a good wine. Sure, his show can still sometimes be edgy and it is possible that some female listeners could still find some aspects of his show a touch too blokey for their tastes. But Evans is a winner and he is very savvy when it comes to knowing what his audience's demands are. He knows he has a tough act to follow but he also has the confidence to fill Wogan's shoes and not be intimidated or be overly concerned if people are critical about him initially. Chris Moyles' audience share could well be under threat.
Golf and rugby sevens being added to the Olympic roster and Rio De Janeiro being awarded the 2016 games
I always tend to believe that there should be two criteria that should be applied to determine whether a sport should be included in the Olympics. Firstly, is the Olympic competition the pinnacle of that sport? Secondly, will the competition be won by the best competitor in the field? To my mind, golf fails both of these tests.
I would not pretend that golf is one of my favourite sports. I can watch the Ryder Cup and sometimes will follow the Masters or the Open Championship and I respect the fact that golf does throw up some tests that other sports do not, such as competing against the elements. But golf is hardly an athletic sport, as witnessing Colin Montgomerie's chest and waistline will be testament to. Added to which, could the Olympic golf competition ever possibly be the blue riband event in that sport? I really don't think it could be, for a professional golfer all that matters is winning one of the four majors or playing in the Ryder Cup.
Of course, the argument that you could throw up at this stage is if you take this line of thought, what business do tennis, football or basketball have being in the Olympics, given that the Olympic tournament is barely a footnote in the schedules for those respective sports. My answer to this would be that they should not be in the Olympics either because they are not the pinnacle of their sport. Tennis players care far more for winning Wimbledon or the US Open, while the Olympic football tournament is an irrelevance in an already packed calendar. The Olympics started out as the ultimate amateur sporting event and while it would be naive to expect these corinthian values to be upheld as purely in modern, monetarily dictated times, it does not seem right that super rich, super successful sportsmen like Roger Federer or Shaquille O'Neal should be competing on that stage.
To my mind, the Olympics are about sports that you do not see on television very often outside of the four year cycle of the Olympics. Swimming, weightlifting, rowing, hockey, cycling, volleyball, badminton, these are the sports that the Olympics are really all about and in every single one of those sports, an Olympic gold is the absolute pinnacle of achievement in their sport. Of course, above all, the Olympics are about the track and field programme and the annals of sporting history have filled with the achievements and sob stories on the track and on the green expanse in Olympic arenas.
The only way I can see golf being compatible with an Olympic competition would be if it were strictly for amateur golfers, much as boxing in the Olympics is only for those yet to turn professional. This would sit more comfortably, but even so, I still do not think golf is a good fit for the Olympics because it is not necessarily won by the best player. You only need to look at golf's majors in recent years to see that there is no sport more open to big upsets and unlikely winners who have their 15 minutes of fame only to disappear into oblivion. I suppose those that like a gallant underdog story would be happy to see golf included on this basis, but I prefer sport to be a test of technical supremacy and because of golf's tendency to be something of a lottery, I feel it should not be included in the Olympics.
As far as rugby sevens is concerned, I can see more reasoning for its inclusion given that there is not a major alternative competition for that form of rugby. There is the Hong Kong sevens tournament, but I would expect an Olympic gold to be regarded as a greater achievement and it would give 7-a-side rugby a greater profile than it presently receives. On that basis, I am in favour of its inclusion.
Concerning the choice of Rio as the host city of 2016, this was pleasing to see. South America has not previously hosted an Olympic Games in its 120 years of existence and is therefore the only continent that has not previously hosted the Games. A summer games in Brazil will throw up a carnival atmosphere full of glamour and colour and I am sure Rio will prove to be an inspired choice. There may some concerns about where Rio will find the money to host the Games and whether it is ethical for so much money to be committed to the short term gain of hosting the Olympics when much poverty remains in some of Rio's less photographed areas. These concerns are valid, but the Olympic carnival coming to town should at least create much needed job opportunities.
Much was made of Chicago's failure to secure the Games after being heavily backed by Barack Obama and whether this was an indictment on Obama. The answer to this is no. Chicago did not get awarded the Olympics because it was one of the weaker bids and the United States have already hosted the Olympics twice since 1980. It is good to see some equality and South America has waited long enough for its chance and so on this occasion, Rio getting the nod appears the right decision.
BNP being invited to appear on Question Time
I am a great believer in free speech and I think that it is perfectly acceptable for even the crankiest and craziest of believers to have a platform for voicing their opinions, so long as their opinions are not breaking any laws.
Where the BNP are concerned, the controversial and bigoted nature of their party line is such that it could be argued that some of their opinions come very close to breaking laws of racial intolerance and hatred. However, I am pleased that they will be allowed a chance to speak on Question Time because it will actually give the public a chance to see what their policies actually are, or more to the point, to see how their distinct lack of coherent policies are papered over by self-pity and vitriolic bile.
Because the BNP only receive a very small amount of airtime because of the extreme nature of their views, this in some ways makes them more appealing as a protest party to some of the electorate that feel that the more conventional political parties have failed to serve anyone other than themselves. The trouble is that because the BNP does not get a place at a public forum very often, people may feel that their views are actually tapping into the public mood and that they could be possible knights in shining armour in making tough decisions to make Britain great again.
By allowing the BNP on to Question Time and giving their leader Nick Griffin opportunity to expand on his party's thoughts on Britain and their possible solutions to its ills, I think this can only be good in properly educating anyone that is tempted to vote for them that what they actually stand for is backward and repulsive and that their views have no place in a forward thinking world.
Oasis splitting up
The only surprise in this announcement was that Oasis actually lasted this long! Surviving fifteen years and seven studio albums of sibling rivalry and in-fighting has in fact been quite a sterling achievement.
I have been a fan of Oasis's right from their beginnings and What's The Story Morning Glory was in fact the first album I ever remember buying. I have all of their studio albums and although I would say that they never consistently matched the quality of their first two albums in the decade or so that followed, Oasis did continue to produce some good material well into the naughties. Their final studio album, Dig Out Your Soul, I felt was a slight disappointment and perhaps not the most fitting way to bow out. Nonetheless, they will remain relevant in 20 years time as their songs will still be played on the radio and they will continue to influence new Indie bands just as their influence is evident in some of today's big bands, such as the Arctic Monkeys and Kasabian, both in terms of the music and the attitude.
Oasis have in the past been accused of being a derivative band that borrowed much from The Beatles. There is some truth in this, but it is a rather simplistic school of thought. Yes, The Beatles certainly influenced Oasis's music, but listen to their back catalogue carefully, and they were far from their only influence. Acts such as the Rolling Stones, Kinks, T-Rex, Stone Roses, The Jam, Sex Pistols and even Nirvana have also had some influence on the Oasis sound over the years. Music is often about being influenced by your predecessors' sounds but enhancing them for a modern audience. Oasis did this better than anyone during the 1990s, although they perhaps lost some of their relevance and mojo after the turn of the millennium.
Noel and Liam Gallagher do not strike me as the kind of men who have much place for regrets in their life, but if they did, they may perhaps wish that they had been able to break America in the way that The Beatles managed to in the 1960s, and indeed, how Coldplay have managed to in recent years. The Americans never quite took to Oasis's bravado and that didn't help their cause. However, I feel that there is something quintessentially British about Noel Gallagher's songwriting and the anthemic nature of Oasis's sound which perhaps the American audience never quite got. Oasis are probably the biggest stadium rock crowd pleasers to emerge from this country since Queen and perhaps it is not coincidence that Queen also never made huge waves in the United States, despite being huge in other far out places.
The brothers Gallagher will now surely go their separate ways and embark on different careers. Although Oasis are often regarded as primarily Noel's project, it is worth remembering that he was the last person to join the original line-up and in actual fact, it was Liam that formed the band under their original name of The Rain. So, by rights, Liam could carry on with the band but without Noel on songwriting duties. On recent albums, some songwriting has been shared out and so Noel's departure in this respect need not be terminal. However, there would be some complications in terms of performing Oasis's back catalogue live given that the public would demand to hear the classics, all of which were written by Noel. Any future Oasis material without Noel would lack credibility in the same way that Guns N' Roses's return without Slash just was not the same.
Noel's career is far from over and I expect a solo album or two will materialise before very long. I would expect Noel's solo sound to follow a similar pattern to that of his mentor and friend, Paul Weller. Weller was an angry young man in The Jam but the style and sound of his solo career has been a much more mellow affair, reflecting his advancing in years. The Oasis songs on which Noel has provided lead vocals, such as The Masterplan, Little By Little and Half the World Away have tended to be more gentle strum-along affairs with well considered lyrics and I would expect more of the same from his solo projects, although like Weller, he may feel more willing to experiment with other sounds that would not have sounded right on an Oasis record.
Liam meanwhile I can see taking a backseat from music for a while. He is heavily involved in producing his own brand of clothing and I think the end of the line for Oasis could well result in an expansion in his clothing lines. Maybe one day Liam and Noel will patch things up and Oasis could provide the great comeback tour of 2015, but I would not go betting the family silver on that eventuality. Whatever happens in the future, you cannot ignore Oasis's past and their legacy to British music will live on through radio airplay and the next generation of bands who will be influenced by their music and their swagger. To borrow the title of my favourite Oasis song, I believe they will live forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
