Serving up a treat

Hello again, cyber friends. As usual, I find myself apologising for an extended absence from subjecting you to my occasionally well thought out prose musing on the finer points of life. And for the most part, my idle ramblings on whatever enters my head. As much as I would like to inform you that my latest hiatus has been due to a hectic work schedule or a spell of globe trotting, the reality is simply that I have been waiting for the necessary inspiration to write about some interesting topics.

Well, since I was last here, what new things have we discovered? The scandal sheets have been full of stories of philandering footballers, writing with exclamations of moral indignation when footballers playing away from home, to use an appropriate analogy, is a tradition associated with the occupation for longer than the wearing of shin pads or the exchanging of penants before kick off. It was the exchange of a handshake that caught the press’s attention recently, although as it transpired, the handshake was not forthcoming. We will come on to the thorny subject of Bridge versus Terry in a future blog, along with some other topics affecting the beautiful game at the moment.

Outside of the national sport, the nation has been captivated by the coverage of the Winter Olympics. Well, that statement is certainly true if the nation in question is Canada. Given that Britain’s credentials in winter sports generally stop at their gold medal performances in the apres-ski beer consumption on the nursery slopes of St Moritz and of de-icing the car windscreen on a biting December morning in readiness for the school run, then Amy Williams’s gold medal in guiding the fastest tea tray in the west down the sliding slopes of Whistler was about all the mother nation could hope for. Although, I am sure the inquests into our paltry medal total have already begun. We invented snow, don’t you know?

Anyway, enough waffling from me. Let’s get down to business and waffle some more.


6 Music a sign of BBC running scared of its enemies
The recent news that the BBC has decided to discontinue the broadcasting of its 6 Music station has raised some eyebrows among media commentators. As well as closing its cult digital music station, the BBC has also announced further cutbacks with around half of its programme websites expected to close, as well as the Asian Network radio station also ceasing to broadcast.

The loyal followers of 6 Music have, understandably, been dismayed by the news of its closure, pointing to the millions of pounds that the BBC have spent on their premises relocation to Manchester. Meanwhile, the hardened cynics to whom progress is a dirty word, have observed that if all of the people that purport to listen to 6 Music had done so on a regular basis, then their beloved channel would not be going off air. Both schools of thought may merit consideration, but neither are contributory factors in why the BBC has reached this decision.

The BBC's decision to cut back on its output has nothing to do with cost savings. It also has very little to do with profitability, or even broadcast ratings. Just because 6 Music attracted comparatively small fry in terms of audience share, that is not a reason to pull the plug. When the channel was first broadcast some 5 years ago, the BBC would not have envisaged the station being a huge ratings winner. The station's music policy and the very deliberate placement of the station as a niche audience puller was a conscious decision, with the anticipation that the station would attract a small, but perfectly formed audience, but which would gather momentum over time through word of mouth.

So, you will be asking, if money wasn't the driving force behind the BBC's cutting back of services, then what was the motivating factor? Well, it would appear to me as though the main factor that has led to the BBC reaching this decision is fear. Fear of what exactly? Fear of change? Fear of competitors? Well, fear of a change in the political landscape would be my personal interpretation on the matter.

Within around two months time, the nation will have to go to the polls as the Labour Government's maximum five year term of office will expire on 6 May. At present, opinion polls vary, but in the main, it is suggested that the Conservatives' are enjoying a 5 to 8 point lead over the Labour Party. In real terms, if the electorate was to vote the same way on polling day, then the likelihood is that the Conservatives would win the most seats but would not have enough to claim an overall majority, therefore meaning the formation of a Hung Parliament.

A Hung Parliament would not concern the BBC's bigwigs as much as the prospect of a Conservative Government being formed, which looked like a formality only a few months ago. For some time, it has been well known that as and when the Conservatives next take power, one of the principle tasks they wish to undertake is to make the BBC a less powerful corporation and to muzzle the activities it is involved in. Their argument, as champions of a free market, open to many competitors, is that the BBC has become too big a player in its market and has moved away from its remit to provide a public service and instead has the structure and constitution of a corporate business. Their wide presence across the media, the Conservatives feel, is a prohibitive barrier for other organisations to realistically compete in the media market, and it is also leads to a danger of a lack of impartiality in media reporting. For some reason, there has long been a perception among some people of blue blooded stock that the BBC leans towards the lily livered liberal section of society, although there has never been any firm evidence of this.

All in all, you would have to say that the BBC in actual fact has been a victim of its own success. The corporation has shown itself to be a good innovator that has set trends across a wide variety of media platforms. You need only look at the success of its iPlayer, success that has manifested itself in the fact that all of the BBC's main competitors have now introduced a similar service to watch recent programmes broadcast by their network via their website. Imitation is indeed the highest form of flattery. Due to the BBC's ability to manoeuvre itself in so many pies, this has brought resentment from its commercial competitors, whose revenue is solely generated through advertising, rather than the licence fee in the case of the BBC.

The unique way in which the BBC is funded continues to be a source of irritation and anger among the more right aligned of the print media titles. The Conservative Party, who gather many of their traditional voters from readers of these newspapers, have spotted a convenient bandwagon to jump on (Conservatives, bandwagon, never) and so have promised that the BBC's spending and corporate governance will be top of their agenda should they assume power in May. Whilst newspapers like the Daily Mail and Telegraph have long held an anti-BBC agenda on the grounds that they object to anything that reduces the amount of disposable income that one could spend on something meaningful like a loft conversion or a pony, it is noticeable that one of the BBC's most vocal critics has been The Sun, which claims that the BBC is not politically impartial. The pungent, intoxicating stench you can detect is that of grade A hypocrisy.

As much as The Sun regards itself as the voice of the people and its powerful editorials and headlines ensure that a fair section of its readers tap into this self-promotion, the truth of the matter is that The Sun is the megaphone for the opinions and agendas of its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is a Capitalist and all of his public comments are deliberately measured for what will provide him with the best opportunity for Capitalist gain. The Sun is quite deliberately targeted at working class, blue collar workers with only a limited amount of intellect and ability to form their own opinions and so consequently, it is people from this demographic that go on to Facebook and set up groups allied to The Sun's right wing viewpoint that preys upon other like minded individuals to sign up.

The purpose of this article is not to beatify the BBC and its hierarchy, but merely to point out that its detractors are looking after number one when they criticise the corporation. In a time when some businesses are failing, the BBC remains a very successful business model, but this appears to be part of the problem. Because the BBC is a public funded organisation, people seem to think that this means its constitution should be such that it should not be governed by making a profit, and yet there is not a business in any sector, including the voluntary sector, that can be sustainable unless it is making a surplus. That Rupert Murdoch and his equally charmless son James have been so vocal in attacking the BBC because its presence restricts what activity Sky can carry out almost makes me want to reach for the Kleenex. Neither Murdoch is interested in what's best for the market or what is best for the consumer, their only motivation is what is best for Team Murdoch and for the Sky corporation.

The point of the matter is that the reason for the BBC's decision to cut back on its website output and to close 6 Music and the Asian Network has little to do with cost cutting and also little to do with ratings, but has everything to do with the fear that the hostility that the Conservative Party has shown the BBC will ensure that if they take power that they will make sure that the BBC is reformed and held more accountable than it presently is. "Quite right too" you can hear the Daily Mail tubthumpers bellowing. "Not before time" they add over in the air conditioned offices of News International. But, who exactly wins in this situation?

The BBC has taken the view that by closing 6 Music, a commercial organisation could come in and acquire the station and the brand and enable it to be moved forward in a way that the BBC couldn't, because to them it was just a niche station in quite a wide radio portfolio. But, this is a case of executives making a decision without understanding the audience that the station was set up for in the first place. Although 6 Music was only moderately successful in terms of the size of its audience, the station had a cult following and its ethos was very much as the antithesis to the plethora of mainstream pop music stations that are available via digital radio. Although I was not a regular listener to 6 Music, one of the reasons for its listeners being loyal to the network is that it gives unsigned acts airplay and it also gives its presenters more autonomy over the selection of music for their show. Musicians such as Jarvis Cocker and Elbow's Guy Garvey have presented shows on 6 Music where they have played an eclectic range of music that is influential to their sound and because the station has veered away from having a set playlist, it gives the presenter more licence to play the type of music they want to play.

Transferring the 6 Music in-house music policy to a commercial setting just simply would not work because a commercial radio station has other priorities, namely advertising. Although in theory the digital revolution gives the radio listener a far more extensive choice of stations and musical genres to listen to, the overall presentation of commercial radio is very formulaic and while various radio stations like to have their listeners believe that the music is their primary focus, there is no disguising the fact that the main consideration for these stations is the advertising mark-up. Three or four sets of adverts an hour plus additional product placement in the form of an auction style competition or a regular sponsor for the travel reports is the lifeblood for commercial radio stations in a massively saturated market.

As much as the brand name of "6 Music" would initially be a selling point for any commercial organisation that bought the station and the brand, ultimately the acquisition of the brand would be worthless unless the core values of the original station were upheld, and this simply is not compatible with the market forces involved in commercial radio. As discussed, commercial radio stations are governed by their advertisers and advertisers are more likely to go where they can get more listeners at key times. As depressing as it is to consider, mainstream is what the advertisers will choose because, by the nature of the word, mainstream means a higher and more accessible audience. Confronted with the choice of advertising on a station that is playing Robbie Williams and Lady GaGa to half a million listeners a week or advertising on a station that is playing the latest hot new act from the London folk rock scene or is playing 1960s album tracks by Bob Dylan to less than half of that audience size, the sad reality is that "Have A Break, Have A Kit Kat" will be aired to the highest audience portion.

The 6 Music listener would be less sad about the inability of the station to find suitable advertising because they are presently happy that they do not have advertising interrupting the music while it remains in the BBC family. This is another reason why it is hard to envisage the station working in a commercial format. The only way that it could really be incorporated into the commercial sector would be for an existing provider in the market to acquire the station and add it to their portfolio.

The only station I can see doing this is Absolute Radio, which is part of the Times of India media empire. Absolute, as well as having its main station, also has a specialist rock and a specialist 1980s music station. Although structurally it is feasible for Absolute to throw its hat in the ring, it has a very rigid and formulaic music policy and it is hard to see how it could continue to run 6 Music with the type of creative programming that it presently enjoys, or for it to have such a focus on unsigned acts. Acts like Florence & The Machine and Marina & The Diamonds have enjoyed exposure on Absolute, but only after they had been broken some months before on other stations. If Absolute took 6 Music on, it would likely just make it into a clone of the XFM indie station that can be heard in London. This would be all the more strange given that Absolute closed a specialist indie station just a few months ago in order to make way for its 80s music station.

In a time when mainstream tastes are catered for at every whim by countless radio stations within the commercial sector, it is a crying shame that the BBC has buckled under the pressure of its detractors and got rid of a niche service which, while not bringing in huge ratings, was never set up with that intention and which cannot be readily imitated with any great success by commercial rivals. It is ironic in some senses that the very people who condemn the BBC for forgetting its roots as a public service broadcaster have been responsible for influencing the corporation in ditching one of its services that was very much broadcasting a public service to grateful listeners, albeit they were a comparatively small audience. It seems strange that the BBC is choosing to axe 6 Music when, if any type of cull was necessary, it may have been better served to dump Radio 1 Xtra, a station that costs far more and which is offering a service already catered for by several commercial rivals. It also happens to employ Tim Westwood as one of its resident DJs and that alone should be good reason for taking an axe to the station.

The Director General of the BBC, Mark Thomson, may feel that making these changes will be enough to appease the dissenting voices in the Conservative Party, who if they had their way would force the BBC into mass cuts which would probably result in such a strain on spending that repeats of My Family would have to be shown on BBC1 every night of the week. First of all, the BBC Trust needs to ratify Thomson's recommended changes and that is by no means guaranteed. But even if it does, should the Tories get into office, I very much doubt these changes alone will be sufficient to satisfy the doubters. Thomson is likely to move on and get another executive position somewhere else, much like his counterpart at ITV, Adam Crozier managed to and then it will be somebody else's turn to keep out the enemy.

In the long run, the only way these people will back down is if the licence fee is discontinued, which could become a possibility once the digital switchover is completed as this could then pave the way to an opt-in/opt-opt out type of subscription television. In the short term, 6 Music's workers and listeners seem to be the unwitting casualties in someone else's war.

New balls please
The ongoing British sporting debacle that is the failure of its Davis Cup team recently reached a new low with Great Britain humbled by the mighty Lithuania in their Euro-Africa zone clash. This result left Britain requiring a victory against Turkey later in the year, in order to avoid relegation to the bottom division of the competition next year and face the possibility of a match against such superpowers as Iceland or Andorra. In fact, it says much for the malaise that faces Britain's team that their next opponents Turkey were defeated in their last tie by Ireland, a country that traditionally produces tennis players as often as Australia produces world champion bobsleighers.

As ever, a scapegoat for British failure was quickly identified and sure enough, it was John Lloyd, the Davis Cup captain who understandably carried the can for a humiliating result, a result that also happened to be Britain's fifth successive loss in a Davis Cup tie under his watch. Lloyd's ousting from office was inevitable because he was directly involved in picking the players that took to the court against Lithuania and so he had to take ownership for the defeat. However, whatever failings Lloyd had should not mask far greater and deeper deficiencies with British tennis which explain why a country with over 60 million inhabitants should continue to fail in producing high calibre players through its own system.

One man who has attracted criticism is Roger Draper, the chairman of the Lawn Tennis Association, the man who was charged with reforming the coaching structure of tennis in the United Kingdom. Draper seems to be another from the Adam Crozier and Mark Thomson school of soundbite, plenty of ideas, but less evidence of any meaningful action. Draper certainly has some vocal critics, not least the Brightonian comedian and tennis lover, Tony Hawks. Hawks, who coincidentally wrote the excellent "Around Ireland With A Fridge", is the patron of the campaign "Tennis For Free", a worthy campaign that tries to give children free access to tennis courts in a similar way to how they are available in the United States. Hawks's spat with Draper stems from the fact that he asked the LTA to promote his campaign, but found that support was in short supply.

The LTA have spent significant sums of money on reform under Draper's tenure and have pleaded for patience on their return on investment, but it is hard to be so sympathetic to this attitude when the LTA spent great sums of money on the hiring and subsequent pay of Andy Murray's coach Brad Gilbert, who would split with Murray acrimoniously within 18 months. Given the prize money that Murray amassed from his growing number of ATP titles, surely it was not unreasonable to expect him to pay for his own coach, rather than for the LTA to set aside the money for this purpose, creating a black hole in the coffers.

Very few top class British players have emerged in the past 20 years, in either the men's or the women's game. Of those that have, Andy Murray spent many of his teenage years being schooled in Spain and so his present status among the current tennis elite owes barely anything to the British coaching system and everything to his mother's determination for Murray to achieve the best tennis education possible. Meanwhile, the 2008 Wimbledon Girls' champion Laura Robson spent most of her early life in Australia. Rewind a few years and Greg Rusedski reached the final of the US Open, but was only representing Britain as a flag of convenience, with his schooling having been on the hard courts of Montreal and Toronto. Of British top 20 players in the last 20 to 25 years, only Tim Henman was genuinely a product of the homegrown system. In his case, he was helped by being born into an affluent, middle class Home Counties family and where tennis was in the genes. It was Henman's grandmother who was the first to serve underarm at Wimbledon.

The class divide is one of the reasons for the continued failure of Britain to produce quality tennis players, although it is far from the only one. Tennis is an expensive sport to play, when compared to other sports. A parent can pay for their child to play football for the cost of buying a ball from the local sports shop, given that the goalposts will already have been paid for in the form of a rucksack or a few coats. Cricket can initially be played with a block of wood and a soft ball with the aforementioned rucksack used as the wicket. But, apart from the possible origins of playing Swingball in the garden, tennis is a costly sport to play due to the cost of getting a court, buying the racquet and if a child is prodigious enough to play competitively, there is the cost of engaging a coach. This is where Tony Hawks' Tennis For Free campaign has its undoubted merits.

While lack of money may end up with certain talented tennis players being lost to the game, I think that the attitude that people have to the game of tennis in this country is another fundamental reason for its continued shortage of a meaningful production line. You will only need to visit your local park on a Sunday morning to see what is wrong with the attitude to the sport in this country. Kids are being kept off the court by a couple of sweaty middle aged blokes, sometimes playing with a John McEnroe vintage wooden racquet who are playing the game with no movement, but gently exchanging rallies from the edge of the baseline and will be serving the ball from inside the service line, without even throwing the ball up to serve authentically.

Now, I am not suggesting that middle aged men should be banned from playing tennis. Far from it, in fact I think that tennis is an excellent way of keeping fit. My point is that there is a lack of intensity in the way the game is played. It is a leisure pursuit for many and because it is a gentle way of passing the time on the weekend before burning off the calories in the bar, people do not really approach the sport in the way it was intended to be played, that is as an athletic sport. Apart from the point that the Sunday morning player often lacks the physique to be an athlete, or is recovering from the previous night's excesses in any event, I think the parks player is often wary about throwing themselves around an unforgiving, concrete court.

While these types of player are hogging the tennis courts at weekends, children are waiting to get a game and if their first direct experience of seeing the game in the flesh is to see a singles or a doubles rubber being played with little energy or enthusiasm, it does not encourage them to stick with the sport themselves and consequently, tennis' loss ends up becoming football's or X-Box 360's gain.

It would help, also, if the public's attitude to tennis improved. In the eyes of many misinformed people, tennis is played for just a fortnight a year on the grass courts of SW19 in late June and early July. Whatever happens before and after in the calendar year is of little consequence. We also have a knack of criticising even the best players that have come out of Britain. Tim Henman was often regarded as a failure and a bottler by some of the British public because he never won Wimbledon, and yet he reached the semi-finals there four times and was once ranked the world's number 4. With the ability he had, Henman reached the absolute apogee that he could expect to ascend to. He was playing at a time when a scud missile first serve was a crucial weapon to possess and Henman's serve lacked the power or consistency needed to land enough killer first serves in against the best opponents.

Look now at Andy Murray, who has enjoyed an excellent couple of years and reached two Grand Slam finals, both of which he lost to the best player of all time, Roger Federer. Yet, for all his tournament successes, you sense that the British public is largely indifferent to Murray and will not change their mind until and if he wins Wimbledon. Murray's Scottish heritage and surlyness is one reason that the public does not connect with him, but there have been far more spiky players in the history of the game who the same public loved. Jimmy Connors for example. A chap called McEnroe too. It does seem a peculiarly British trait that we knock our own sportsmen, especially where those that attract the flak happen to be the best that we have.

The whole infrastructure of tennis in this country, from the way the game is taught in schools, to the public facilities available, right through to the coaching structure clearly requires radical overhaul in order for the game to move forward into the twenty-first century. The stuffy, country club mentality of the tennis committees across the country looks likely to be the greatest barrier to change being actioned and until change is embraced, the same culture of failure and the same negative attitudes to tennis and how it is played will continue in to the next generation.

Tennis is a fantastic sport and its greatest tournament is held in Britain. It is tragic that we continually fall short in producing good players worthy of the tournament. Any success that Andy Murray and Laura Robson achieve in the coming few years should be greatly received, and hopefully this would provide inspiration for children to pick up a racquet and feel compelled to emulate them, much in the way that Sweden enjoyed a boom time in men's tennis after Bjorn Borg's sustained success. But in the short term, any achievements that Murray and Robson muster will be down to them and their coaching staff and will only paper over the seismic cracks in the current running of the sport.

Policies need to be clearer than personalities
While the media are excited at the prospect of a mandatory calling of a General Election any week now, I am finding myself all the more disengaged from the current political landscape. As tends to be the way, the United Kingdom is following the lead of the United States and it appears that the spin doctors advising each of the three main political parties have advised them that in a tight situation, this election will be won by personalities rather than by policies. This has led to the uncomfortable sight in recent weeks of both David Cameron and Gordon Brown being interviewed about their personal lives, rather than asking them to explain their idealologies and their plans for running the country if elected in May.

I watched parts of both Brown's interview with the boorish Piers Morgan and Cameron's interview with Sir Trevor McDonald, which also featured a testimony from Cameron's wife on why her dearly beloved is the best man to run the country and in which she constantly referred to him as "Dave". Whether Cameron calls his wife Trigger I cannot say, although he did not do so during the programme. Neither interview really offered any great insight into the party leaders' personalities other than that they had a distinct lack of one, but I dare say Piers Morgan will feel he landed a potent body punch when he asked Brown if he and his wife had become members of the mile high club when they first romanced one another on a flight.

What the political strategists need to realise is that personalities are in pretty short supply in politics these days and while it is true that the next Prime Minister will be the one that connects with the electorate the most, this connection will be largely determined by who provides evidence of the most convincing policy, rather than who can come up with the best one liner, who can pull the funniest face or who can cook an omelette quicker. Mind you, Gordon Brown versus David Cameron on the Omelette Challenge might make Saturday Kitchen compulsive viewing in the run-up to the election.

The depressing aspect of politics at the moment is that it is just weeks before an election and still all of the main parties seem unclear on what their election winning policies actually are. Prime Minister's Question Time is pure theatre, an opportunity for Cameron and Clegg to attack the Prime Minister and to point out all of the present administration's wrongs, but neither have actually explained what it is that their prospective Governments would do differently. It is for this very reason that the polls show that the Conservative lead in the polls is now anticipated to be around 5 to 6 per cent, whereas at one point last year at the height of the recession, they had a 20 point lead. This advantage has been cut drastically not because Gordon Brown has done anything inspirational, but because David Cameron has done little to convince the British public that he and his Government would offer a better alternative. If Cameron fails to get the Conservatives elected in the current political climate, it will be an indictment on his lack of clarity concerning policy.

It could also be the case that the print media underestimated some of their readers (or misunderestimated it, as George W Bush might say). The Sun has nailed its colours firmly to the mast and is fully behind the Conservatives again after its unholy alliance with the Labour Party was severed last year. Since changing horse, The Sun has given Gordon Brown seven barrels of the horns effect treatment, without ever quite giving David Cameron an equal measure of the halo effect.

Some of The Sun's criticism of Brown's Government has had justification, but some of it has also misjudged the public mood. The story of Mrs Janes, the bereaved mother of a soldier that had been killed in Afghanistan was a case-in-point. The Sun made a big deal out of the point that Brown had misspelt the bereaved mother's name in a handwritten letter of condolence that was sent to her, when in actual fact, Brown had not misspelt her name but his handwriting was not particularly legible and so this made it appear as though her name was spelt wrong. The Sun certainly scored an own goal when they then went and spelt Mrs Janes's name wrong on their website's discussion board section. But they were guilty of misreading public attitudes and forgot that many of their own readers are illiterate or dyslexic and so their attitude towards Brown was offensive to them.

More recently, Labour received another boost when it transpired that the charity that had blown the whistle on Gordon Brown's reputed physical and verbal bullying of his staff happened to have Conservative patrons, who no doubt expected to benefit from this story breaking. Nothing like manipulating your position for political capital. It was just the small matter that by throwing the story out to the public domain, it compromised the confidentiality of the person that had reported the allegation in confidence in the first place. The public will have noted incidents like this, and as with the expenses scandal, will have concluded that all political persuasions are as corruptible as each other.

As speculated on above, the forthcoming election appears to have the makings of producing a Hung Parliament, with no one party in overall control, but with the Conservatives likely to have the most seats. Such a result would thrown open the possibility of a certain amount of horsetrading among all the main political parties on the key policy issues and in the short term, it could be the way to restore some political integrity. The Italian Government, however, is not a ringing endorsement for a coalition style Government, although that may be due more to the volatility of the Italian political culture than the weakness of the system.

The biggest winners though are likely to be the Nationalist parties. In times of trouble, people become naturally more insular and in both Wales and Scotland where devolved national Governments are in place and where Conservative votes are rarer than Iceberg lettuces, it is likely that the voters will show their disdain for the national Government by increasing the vote for Plaid Cymru and the SNP respectively. The nearest equivalent to a Nationalist party in England is the UK Independence Party, which is a watered down version of the BNP except without the membership restrictions. I was going to say without the racism, but given Nigel Farage's recent outburst about Belgium in the European Parliament, that may not be altogether true. Despite certain credibility problems, UKIP will attract a reasonable portion of the vote among Euro sceptics and there are places where they could come second in the count, although I would be surprised if they won any seats.

It is to be hoped that the forthcoming Prime Ministerial televised debates provide some opportunity for the triumverate of candidates to bare their teeth in a figurative sense, if not a cringeworthy, airbrushed poster campaign literal sense. People have suggested that Nick Clegg could be the lucky beneficiary from those debates as he has less to lose than messrs Cameron and Brown due to the lack of awareness there is in his existence by the British public. This lack of awareness was backed up this week by a survey in which more people were aware of the racehorses Kauto Star and Denman than they were of Clegg. A good story, although the papers that carried the story tended to gloss over the bit that said the survey was carried out by Ladbrokes, one of the UK's premier turf accountants. One suspects that Ladbrokes take more bets on popular racehorses than they do on the Liberal Democrats winning the General Election. The only difference between Kauto Star and Denman and the party leaders is that one of the latter is guaranteed to finish first past the post.

The death of Michael Foot a few weeks ago and the subsequent obituary columns were a timely reminder of how politics has changed. Foot was an honourable man, but an unelectable party leader, and yet he was a man who always put substance and principles over style. Looking at politics now, the philosophy has been turned on its head to the point that many politicians are reticent to actually stand up for what they really believe in because of the harm it could have on their ambitions. Despite being an aberration so far as being a prospective Prime Minister was concerned, Foot at least had honour. That is not a trait that has yet to be evidenced by the three princes who would be king.

Champions League last 16 previews - week commencing 22 February 2010

Another batch of 2nd round 1st leg Champions League matches are taking place this midweek. Here's my take on affairs:

Stuttgart v Barcelona
The holders have been in imperious form in La Liga this season, although their unbeaten domestic campaign was ended by Atletico Madrid last weekend. They have continued to be the free scoring force that they were in winning this competition last season, with Zlatan Ibrahimovic having been a regular goalscorer since his signing from Inter Milan. Stuttgart by contrast have had a poor season and their place in the second round owed much to being in the weakest first round group. A 5-1 win at struggling Cologne at the weekend was a rare moment of joy in what has been a poor campaign. Stuttgart have Barcelona old boy Aleksandr Hleb in their ranks and will look to him to provide their creative spark. Given that Stuttgart are out of contention for Champions League qualification for next season, they can enter this match with a nothing to lose and that could make them dangerous. All said and done though, Barcelona should have enough technical quality and experience to negotiate this tie and to finish the job in the Nou Camp.
Prediction: 1-2

Olympiakos v Bordeaux
Greece's most regular participants in the knockout stages of the Champions League take on the reigning French champions and this will be an awkward match for Laurent Blanc's side, given that Olympiakos are always strong on their home turf, helped by a vociferous support. The important thing is that Bordeaux managed to retain their best players during January and that gives them the best possible chance of advancing from this tie. Olympiakos should have former Blackburn striker Matt Derbyshire available to them again after a spell out injured. Bordeaux showed in the group phase that they are not afraid taking on quality opposition and as long as they do not concede an early goal and then wilt, I see them having enough quality to grab a draw and then complete the job in the south of France.
Prediction: 1-1

Inter Milan v Chelsea
The blue riband tie of the week sees the much anticipated return of the Special One to take on his former employers with whom he achieved much success. The acrimonious way in which he left though will ensure he is very motivated to plot Chelsea's demise from this season's competition. Mourinho's present employers have much to prove in the Champions League, having continually stumbled at this stage in recent years. Inter have shown the pragmatic and efficient qualities befitting a Mourinho side this season without being spectacular. By contrast, Chelsea have at times been excellent but on other occasions fallible and their away form has been a concern. Inter have not been defeated in the San Siro under Mourinho's watch but their hopes of establishing an advantage will depend on how their back line can cope with the power of Didier Drogba, who has been in magnificent form. This has the look of a tie in which both teams will set up cautiously and not give much away, with the game being particularly congested in midfield. I therefore see only one goal, which I can see going to the home team to put the second leg in the melting pot.
Prediction: 1-0

CSKA Moscow v Sevilla
The early kick-off on Wednesday sees Sevilla travel to opponents currently experiencing their off-season. CSKA showed some attacking qualities in the group stages, in which their highlight was a 3-3 draw at Old Trafford. Sevilla's passage to this stage was easier due to being a straightforward qualifying group. The Andalucians' preparation for this match was not helped by finishing their weekend La Liga match with 9 men and so they could tire noticeably in the latter stages of the match in Russia. By the same token, CSKA's lack of match fitness is likely to have an effect on them in the final 20 minutes. Due to this and because both teams have a natural inclination to attack, I see this being an open, entertaining affair with the honours shared.
Prediction: 2-2

Champions League last 16 previews and predictions

This week sees the return of the Champions League after its mid-season break and there are four quite interesting match-ups, with two ties involving English teams. Here is my take on how these matches will shape up:

AC Milan v Manchester United
I think that the key to this tie is going to be the ability of Manchester United to dictate the tempo against Milan. If you look at their recent matches, United have reverted back to playing 4-3-3 and looking to exploit teams on the counter attack with their pace and interchangeable wingers. I would expect United to deploy this formation against Milan, particularly given the ageing spine of the Milan team. Milan will look to try and slow the game down and get the likes of Pirlo to orchestrate the game from deep positions. United have a dreadful record in the San Siro stadium against Milan previously and I expect they will be content to grab a draw with an away goal to set them up for the 2nd leg. I expect United to get what they came for.
Prediction: 1-1

Lyon v Real Madrid
In recent seasons, Lyon have generally gone further in the competition than Madrid and they have beaten them a couple of times in the group stages. But that was then and this is now, and with the loss of players like Juninho and Benzema in recent times, I do not think Lyon are as much of a danger to Madrid's star names as they would have been a year or two ago. Lyon remain difficult to beat at home, but Madrid have started to pick up momentum since the turn of the year and must feel as though they are equipped to go a long way in the competition this season. I particularly feel that Cristiano Ronaldo is keen to take his new employers far in this competition and so if Real bring their recent form into this match, I can see them inflicting a rare European home loss on the hosts, standing them in good stead for the second leg.
Prediction: 1-2

Bayern Munich v Fiorentina
These teams' seasons have been going in different directions since the beginning of 2010. Bayern have enjoyed their customary upturn in form after the New Year and are currently level on points with Bayer Leverkusen at the top of the Bundesliga. By contrast, Fiorentina are having a miserable run in Serie A and are currently eleventh in the standings. Bayern seem to have been buoyed by their victory in Turin that saw them through to the knockout phase at Juventus's expense and the return of Franck Ribery has greatly boosted them. They are scoring plenty of goals at the moment and are always strong at the Allianz Arena. By contrast, Fiorentina are poor travellers with far less Champions League experience than their opponents. Fiorentina need to score an away goal to stand any chance of progressing, but I can only see a comfortable Bayern Munich victory on all known form.
Prediction: 3-0

Porto v Arsenal
I feel that some pundits are guilty of underestimating Porto, who gave Manchester United a very hard match in the quarter-finals last season. They may be short of star names but they are always difficult to beat at home and possess plenty of technical ability in their team. Arsenal's morale will have been boosted by their win against Liverpool in midweek, but the win could not mask a mediocre performance. In keeping with their previous two matches against Manchester United and Chelsea, they enjoyed plenty of the ball but created only a handful of shots on target. Their lack of incisiveness in the final third of the pitch is a criticism that could also be levelled at Porto at times, and so I envisage this to be a low scoring match, although I expect the template of the game to be pretty open. If Arsenal can score an away goal, it would put them in a very strong position for the 2nd leg, in the knowledge that they beat Porto 4-0 at the Emirates just last season. But I am not entirely convinced by Arsenal's ability to score a goal with Arshavin playing centrally and so I fancy Porto to shade the first leg and leave the tie on a knife-edge.
Prediction: 1-0

Life is just a box of chocolates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRIT Award predictions 2010

The past week has seen the BRIT Award nominations for 2010 take place, with the results to be declared on 16 February at the ceremony at Earls Court. In general, the shortlist appears a little lightweight and predictable this year, with pop and dance acts seemingly faring better than indie and rock acts. This reflects the dominance of these genres in the charts during 2009.

In order to build up a sense of anticipation (and to build up my sense of self-importance!), I have decided to provide my lowdown on who is likely to walk away with some decorative pieces for their coffee table or en-suite lavatory, while also stating who I would dish out the gongs to. Let's just hope I don't upset any Russian Pet Shop Boys fans this year. Enjoy!


BEST BRITISH FEMALE SOLO ARTIST (Bat For Lashes, Florence & The Machine, Leona Lewis, Lily Allen & Pixie Lott)
All of these artists have attracted a fair amount of coverage in the past year. Leona Lewis in particular would win a Brit Award for ubiquity. Pixie Lott has enjoyed plenty of chart success in 2009 so I guess she is a frontrunner. I don't like either Lily Allen or her music but she attracted plenty of coverage last year and her album sold well. Florence and her machine have been the darlings of the music press over the past year and her album was one of the top sellers last year, so that suggests she is likely to win this. Brighton's very own Bat For Lashes aka Natasha Khan though released one of my favourite albums last year and so she would get my vote.
PREDICTION TO WIN: Florence & The Machine MY SELECTION: Bat For Lashes

BEST BRITISH MALE SOLO ARTIST (Calvin Harris, Dizzee Rascal, Mika, Paolo Nutini, Robbie Williams)
A curious list of nominees here, not least because I didn't realise Mika was even British! According to Wikipedia, he was born in Beirut. As per usual, you sense that the Brits committee had difficulty drawing up a shortlist for this category. Calvin Harris and Dizzee Rascal have had the most chart success over the past year which puts them in the running to win this. Robbie Williams is being given the lifetime achievement award which is usually a polite way of saying that the music you are releasing now should only be played to scare away stray cats. Paolo Nutini has released a couple of good tracks although I'm not sure he is cut out to sing reggae as he tries on his latest effort. Not a vintage renewal of this award, but I think Calvin might just edge out Dizzee.
PREDICTION TO WIN: Calvin Harris MY SELECTION: Paolo Nutini

BEST BRITISH BREAKTHROUGH ACT (Florence & The Machine, Friendly Fires, JLS, La Roux, Pixie Lott)
This looks like a hard one to call as you have a couple of acts that will appeal to teenage girls in the form of JLS and La Roux and then you have a couple of acts that the critics quite like in the form of Florence & The Machine and Friendly Fires. So it really depends on which audience is going to influence the vote the most. Florence has got nominations elsewhere and she will walk away with best British female at least, so I think this might be an award she misses out on here. I'm not sure JLS winning would do the street cred of the Brits much good, although it could cause a crush in the mosh pit. I've got a sneaking suspicion that La Roux might walk away with the honours here.
PREDICTION TO WIN: La Roux MY SELECTION: Florence & The Machine

BEST BRITISH GROUP (Doves, Friendly Fires, JLS, Kasabian, Muse)
I'm trying hard to suppress laughter in seeing that JLS have been nominated for this category. In saying that, it's not really a vintage shortlist in comparison with previous years. The only album out of these acts that I bought last year was by Doves and it was one of those albums I listened to a couple of times and then didn't bother with again, certainly not as good as their previous album. I like Muse but didn't buy their last album, but they have released a couple of good singles cuts. With Oasis having called it a day in a sea of acrimony, Kasabian have entered stage right and they released a couple of good singles too in 'Fire' and 'Underdog'. Acts that are quite popular live tend to do quite well in this category, so maybe JLS have a chance after all! But Kasabian and Muse are both well regarded as live acts, so I think the winner comes from one of those 2 and as Kasabian's album sold particularly well last year, I'd take them to edge it.
PREDICTION TO WIN: Kasabian MY SELECTION: Muse

BEST BRITISH ALBUM (Dizzee Rascal, Florence & The Machine, Kasabian, Lily Allen, Paolo Nutini)
The best British album of last year in my opinion was 'To Lose My Life' by White Lies, but that doesn't appear to have been nominated. What a travesty. I guess it is a sign of the times because for the first time in a good number of years, I don't own any of the albums that have been nominated. That makes it difficult to offer much of a meaningful appraisal on who should win. Kasabian and Florence were responsible for the best sellers last year and so that suggests to me that one of those two acts will probably win. I can't really see Dizzee Rascal winning, that would be a bonkers decision and I don't have the fear that Lily Allen will win (did you see what I did there, did you?). Again, a close call, but I think this might be Florence's second award of the night.
PREDICTION TO WIN: Florence & The Machine MY SELECTION: Erm....I guess Kasabian as it's the only album out of these I've really heard anything of

BEST BRITISH SINGLE (Alesha Dixon: Breathe Slow, Alexandra Burke: Bad Boys, Cheryl Cole: Fight For This Love, Joe McElderry: The Climb, JLS: Beat Again, La Roux: In For The Kill, Lily Allen: The Fear, Pixie Lott: Mama Do, Taio Cruz: Break Your Heart, Tinchy Stryder: Number 1)
As usual, the best single seems to be largely influenced by pop songs. Would I be right in thinking that these nominees are largely determined by the best selling singles of the year? Alexandra Burke would win the award for most annoying song of the year and The Climb was such a good song that it got outsold for Christmas number 1 by a metal song that was originally released 17 years before. Cheryl Cole is bound to be in with a shout for this, as will Tinchy Stryder and Pixie Lott. But I think this award will provide JLS with their moment of destiny.
PREDICTION TO WIN: JLS MY SELECTION: I wouldn't pick any of them, but The Fear is the best of a bad bunch

BEST INTERNATIONAL FEMALE ARTIST (Lady GaGa, Ladyhawke, Norah Jones, Rihanna, Shakira)
Always nice to see Shakira nominated, not least so we can see whether a certain part of her anatomy are as humble as mountains. Rihanna's presence would not be too shabby either. I didn't realise Norah Jones had released anything for about 5 years but I can't imagine I missed anything. I've got Ladyhawke's album. If you haven't heard of her, check her out, she's an Australian singer-songwriter with a sort of electronica/80s feel to her sound and she released a particularly good song called 'My Delirium'. The fact I'm telling you all this though informs you that she won't win the award. There can only be one winner though. Lady GaGa had an incredible 2009 in terms of commercial success and she's performing on the night, she won't be going home empty handed. I imagine her acceptance speech will be worth seeing, as will her outfit.
PREDICTION TO WIN: Lady GaGa MY SELECTION: Ladyhawke

BEST INTERNATIONAL MALE ARTIST (Bruce Springsteen, Jay-Z, Eminem, Michael Buble, Seasick Steve)
As ever, this category should be sponsored by Stannah Stairlifts or Saga Holidays given that both Bruce Springsteen and Seasick Steve would probably qualify for a bus pass. Let's hope that the latter chooses to fly to the ceremony. Michael Buble seems to be one of these crooners who is popular with the ladies, so he's not without a chance. But that then leaves us with the battle of the rappers and although Eminem returned to the fold last year, Jay-Z seemed to be everywhere. When he wasn't recording his own material, he was collaborating on other people's. His work ethic probably gives him the nod for this award.
PREDICTION TO WIN: Jay-Z MY SELECTION: Jay-Z

BEST INTERNATIONAL ALBUM (Animal Collective, Black Eyed Peas, Empire Of The Sun, Jay-Z, Lady GaGa)
As with the best British album, for the first time in several years, I own none of the nominees in this category either. Must say that I'm surprised U2's album didn't make the shortlist though, as it was their best album for quite some time. Animal Collective are one of those bands that critics talk up a lot but I've not heard any of their material. Not really familiar with Empire Of The Sun either, other than the film with a young Christian Bale in the lead role. Black Eyed Peas had another good year and they are not without a chance here, but I expect the assembled audience will be going GaGa again.
PREDICTION TO WIN: Lady GaGa MY SELECTION: Don't care

BEST INTERNATIONAL BREAKTHROUGH ACT (Animal Collective, Daniel Merriweather, Empire Of The Sun, Lady GaGa, Taylor Swift)
You know who aside, these artists all made such an impact in breaking through last year that I barely heard any of their material. Daniel Merriweather and Taylor Swift have their followers and the other 2 bands may well go on to bigger and better things, but there is a certain air of inevitability about who will be winning this award. Hat-trick for the poker faced oddball.
PREDICTION TO WIN: Lady GaGa MY SELECTION: Pass

CRITICS' CHOICE (Ellie Goulding, Delphic, Marina & The Diamonds)
Not sure if this award has already been decided, but I remember Florence & The Machine won this last year before the ceremony took place. Given that, presumably Marina & The Diamonds must stand a good chance this time. Ellie Goulding just came top of the BBC's 10 acts to follow this year, so that must give her a very good chance too. Judging by how last year's winner fared in the award nominations this year, whoever wins is likely to be up for some of the main awards next year.
PREDICTION TO WIN: Ellie Goulding MY SELECTION: Ellie Goulding

OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION (Robbie Williams)
I suppose you tend to forget how long Robbie's been around now. His first solo song was released in 1996 and his first album came out the following year, plus if you include all his early Take That work then he's been in the industry for nearly 20 years. His past 2 or 3 albums have been pretty mediocre from what I've heard of them and I wouldn't say I was a massive fan of his earlier stuff, but he has always been about his live performances rather than someone who releases great albums that live long in the memory. In terms of showmen, he's always managed to put bums on seats and made money for the record execs, so given that this is their awards showpiece, they were bound to show their gratitude sooner or later.

BEST BRITS ALBUM OF LAST 30 YEARS (Coldplay: Rush Of Blood To The Head, Dido: No Angel, Dire Straits: Brothers In Arms, Duffy: Rockferry, Keane: Hopes & Fears, Oasis: Morning Glory, Phil Collins: No Jacket Required, Sade: Diamond Life, The Verve: Urban Hymns, Travis: The Man Who)
As this is apparently the 30th BRIT Awards, there are a couple of extra categories this year and the first of them is the best album of the past 30 years. Considering some of the great British albums that could have been chosen but weren't, you have to wonder about the sanity of the shortlisting panel for suggesting Phil Collins and Duffy for an award that marks the best of music in the past 30 years. Phil Collins might just be eligible to win an award for best portrayal of a Great Train Robber on film, but there is very little else he is best at. As a fan of both Coldplay and Oasis, I would question whether the albums nominated are those respective bands' best albums. There is a case for Definitely Maybe and X&Y being their best work. Nonetheless, these albums are their most commercially successful which is why they are here. I think 'The Man Who' is an excellent album and would come very close to winning this. But if pushed, Morning Glory would have to get the honours.
PREDICTION TO WIN: Oasis MY SELECTION: Oasis

THE BRIT HITS 30 - BEST BRITS LIVE PERFORMANCE
Some rather odd nominations in this category which is for the best live performance at the BRIT Awards in its 30 year history. As you'd expect, Robbie Williams, Take That, Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney are all nominated. Rather more surprisingly, Bros and the Spice Girls are also nominated. Coldplay's performance of Clocks a few years ago rocked and is certainly a contender. I also remember the Scissor Sisters set being well received a few years back, so they have a chance. And of course, how can we forget Kylie? But I'd go for Michael Jackson, although not so much for his performance but because Jarvis Cocker's stage invasion which is one of those iconic BRIT Award moments. I'm not so certain the judging panel have a sense of humour though, so I expect this award may be heading elsewhere.
PREDICTION TO WIN: Paul McCartney MY SELECTION: Michael Jackson with special credit to Jarvis Cocker's derriere, just edging out Kylie and her, erm, derriere

A Christmas cracker

Well, merry Christmas everybody. After the long preamble and the trials and tribulations of buying the Christmas presents, wrapping them, putting up decorations and filling up on turkey and all the trimmings and consuming copious amounts of wine, Christmas was gone in a flash. Yet again, all those hopes and dreams of unwrapping a magical present only to discover the usual array of socks and boxer shorts again. I dare say the turf accountants of this fair isle will be suitably non-plussed too given that they will have to pay out on a white Christmas after snow fell in Glasgow and parts of Northern England on St Nick's Day.

I hope Santa was kind to you this year and that your Christmas experience was a good one. But as well as Christmas, there have been some other things going on this crazy spinning globe we inhabit. So I'm going to recline in my comfy chair and discuss some of these issues while scoffing some turkey sandwiches and knocking back a vino or two. Here goes.

My take on...

The pre-Christmas cold snap
Well if there is a man of divinity upstairs in control of the weather, he appears to lack a sense of timing. While the romantics were keeping their fingers crossed that they could wake up to a classic Christmas card scene on Christmas morning, in the event the blanket of snow arrived a week early. I suppose the timing was at least spot on in the eyes of schoolchildren, given that the blizzard-esque conditions arriving when they did enabled them to start their Christmas holidays a day ahead of schedule and instead of heading to school for double Maths and possibly The Santa Clause DVD as a reward for good behaviour in the General Studies class, they instead could just retreat to the garden for triple snowball fighting.

Snow does appear to be a strange phenomenon for the majority of people in this country, probably because being a temperate country, we are not used to it visiting these shores very often. This is reflected in many people's attitude towards the white stuff which could be best described as a love-hate relationship. People love the idea of snow falling and the romantic image of opening the curtains to a white carpet where the night before there had been driveway and pavement. They may also love the thought of being snowed in for a day so that it prevents a day's travel to work. But once the snow turns to ice and makes navigating the pavements a challenge even to Torvill and Dean, people are less enamoured by this invasion from winter's forces of nature.

It is true also that because extreme winter weather conditions are not a regular occurrence in the United Kingdom that preparation for such conditions is not as ingrained in the national psyche as it would be in countries more accustomed to snowfall. This is worth remembering when assessing the fallout from this most recent flurry of snow and the disruption it caused, particularly in view of the criticism that local authorities received over the lack of speed with which they responded to the situation.

There is no question that local authorities were reactive to the inclement weather rather than proactive. The adverse weather conditions had been forecast several days beforehand, although it is probably fair to conclude that the amount of snow that fell in a short space of time was greater than had been anticipated. Nonetheless, the cold snap had been widely predicted beforehand and so it would not have been unreasonable to have expected there to have been some measures in place whereby the gritting supplies were on standby. The argument that you cannot plan in advance on the strength of a weather forecast no longer holds the weight that it would previously have done given that the long range forecasting technology available now has improved the accuracy of forecasting.

All this said, there was only so much that could be done. In February, you may recall that there was discussion about the heavy snowfall that caused disruption at that time and one of the key points I raised back then was that the difficulty in reacting quickly to the situation was because much of the snow fell at the weekend when there were not adequate staff around to grit roads and pavements or to clear snow from railway and tram lines. This time around, the snow fell largely on Thursday and Friday, but some areas were at their most treacherous at the weekend when the snow had thawed out and roads and pavements had become pathways of sheet ice as it is known in Newcastle, or sub-standard ice as it is known elsewhere. This meant that addressing the problem at this point was more difficult because of the lack of manpower available and was further exacerbated by the disruption to the transport network, preventing workers from getting to the scene.

There are those that would suggest that local authorities keep a war chest of suitable machinery to use in the event of snow, much like is used in Russia or some Scandinavian countries. Such a move would be impractical though given that this would be an expensive exercise to deal with a weather pattern that is relatively rare in the United Kingdom. While it is true that this is the second time that there has been significant snowfall during 2009, it is also worth remembering that prior to this year, the last time there was anything that could be described as a blizzard in the south of England without sounding very melodramatic would have been some eighteen years ago. Asking local authorities to resource for a scenario that may not present itself again for the best part of another two decades at a time when local government is needing to make cut backs is not a realistic solution.

So should we just grin and bear this and accept that sometimes the forces of nature are too powerful for man and woman and their insatiable desires? Well, maybe rather than looking to authority to solve all our problems, we should look closer to home. One of the arguments I have heard in the aftermath of this latest cold snap is that there was a distinct lack of community spirit from good samaritans, people who would clear the pavement of the snow near to their house with the aid of a shovel in order to allow others easier access to get from A to B. After all, the common complaint when the snow fell last week was that while the main roads were dealt with relatively quickly, it was the side roads and cul-de-sacs that were most treacherous because they were not visited by the gritters and so consequently their inhabitants were "snowed in".

But, could these self-same inhabitants have done more to ensure that they and their neighbours were not snowed in for so long? If more people had taken it upon themselves to put themselves forward and clear the covering of snow around their humble abodes, then maybe the gridlock that ensued could have been reduced. There is a pervading attitude that "this is not my responsibility" and in one sense, this is probably right. However, as citizens of this planet, doing good deeds for others is something that everyone will say they strive to do, but very few actually achieve.

This would have been one of those situations where if more people had adopted a more selfless attitude and a spot of "Dunkirk spirit" then many others would have benefited. As it was, it is a sad social commentary of our times that the people that did do it were so rare that they appeared on the local television news and were unlikely to have received the gratitude for their efforts. Such noble gestures would have been more commonplace in generations past but it says much about the fast paced society in which we now live where we have become accustomed to being spoon fed at every opportunity so as to interfere as little as possible with our individual schedules.

So while you can blame authority for being too slow in responding to a situation which they could have managed more effectively had they been more proactive, every one of us could have done a few small things that could have made life easier for everyone else.

Rage Against The Machine winning the Christmas number 1 battle
There are some Christmas traditions that are a staple part of the festive period. Mince pies, secret Santas, office parties that in the cold light of day result in heavy heads and busy photocopier call-out engineers. And of course, the Christmas number 1. For pop anoraks, this coveted position is gold dust and for record executives, reaching the apogee of the charts in time for Christmas is very lucrative. Yet, for everyone else, is being number 1 on Christmas Day such a big deal? The pop charts have never been a meritocracy, but more an exercise in lavish self-promotion.

Of course, the championing of Rage Against The Machine was supposed to be the antidote to the routine inevitable victory for the media machine in propelling the X-Factor winner to Christmas number 1, a position every series winner had reached since 2004. The social network using public were figuratively raging against the machine by downloading the 1992 anthem by the Californian grunge-metal act. And yet, contained within this campaigning was surely the most rich, delicious irony, richer than the Christmas pudding that has likely been affixed to the roof of your mouth since Christmas Day. This irony being that it was the power of another self-serving machine, Facebook, and the publicity that the online campaign had generated, that ensured that this most unfestive of songs reached number 1 in a comparative landslide against the odds.

In one sense, it was certainly good to see that the X-Factor had been defeated. I am likely to be in a relative minority, but I am not a fan of ITV's biggest ratings winner outside of the soaps, mainly because of the inflated sense of ego among the judging panel. Simon Cowell is a difficult man to like, even if in one sense you have to grudgingly respect how powerful and influential he is, to the point that he could pull the plug on the X-Factor tomorrow if he so chose to. It is his show and Cowell strikes me as the autocratic type who will do what he wants, when he wants. As a human being though, he strikes me as a charmless, arrogant man who would be a shoo-in on any list I would compile of celebrities I would gladly, notionally throw in the alligator pit at feeding time. But beyond the head honcho, the rest of the judges are worthy of receiving a horse's head in their stocking at Christmas, not least Dannii Minogue, who appeared to miss out in the supply of charm in the Minogue household.

The past few years have seen the Christmas charts become a predictable formality with the winner known as soon as the winner of that year's X-Factor was revealed. Not that they are part of a profession that elicits any sympathy, but one imagines that bookmakers will have been none too pleased with this trend given that it will have ended the Christmas charts as a betting heat. But maybe we should also remind ourselves that before the X-Factor came along, the Christmas charts were hardly renowned for their quality control, given that such musical icons as Bob The Builder had previously scaled the summit at Christmas. The ease with which music is available now via instantaneous downloading has meant that novelty songs released at this time of year retain their popularity and this can be seen by glancing at the full top 40 at Christmas this year.

The choice of "Killing In The Name Of" as the campaign song to challenge the might of the Cowell machine was a curious one, not least because the song was originally released nearly eighteen years ago. The lyrics of the song have an anarchic tone and would seem to strike a chord with the rebellious teenager that does not want to conform. Maybe this makes it an appropriate song for this campaign given that its purpose was to challenge the accepted practice of the established order, i.e. The X-Factor and the media machine, always determining the outcome of the Christmas number one.

But while the intensity of the Facebook campaign certainly helped to propel Rage Against The Machine to number 1, it got there as much because of the lack of warmth for Joe McElderry and his song "The Climb". As I stated above, I rarely watch the X-Factor and I missed the final this year, so I am not really qualified to offer an appraisal on the merits of McElderry against his rivals. However, when you consider that his song only sold around 450,000 downloads and copies in its first week when the X-Factor final pulled in around 13 million viewers, that hardly serves as a ringing endorsement for McElderry.

I am no great fan of Rage Against The Machine and to be honest, "Killing In The Name Of" is not my mug of musical Twinings. The early 1990s era of hard edged, angry American grunge and guitar music rather passed me by as a generic genre (try saying that after a few Christmas vinos) and this song is no different in this respect. Nonetheless, I am always happy to see anything that knocks Simon Cowell and his cronies down a peg or two, so all the Facebook users that joined the campaign should go for a stroll in a country field and thereby give themselves a pat on the back. I doubt the victory will be a permanent one though and I am sure with a stronger X-Factor contender next winter, we will see that machine restored to its customary number one spot at Christmas.

For the rest of us though, if you would like to download a cheery, wintry tune ideal for cold mornings, I suggest you download "Winter Winds" by Mumford & Sons. Without the support of the media machine or of a global social networking site, however, this fine track only made it to number 48 in the charts earlier this month. A shame really and that tells you all need to know about the charts and their credibility.

Manchester City sacking Mark Hughes
Among the popular press, there has been much consternation and disgust over the cut-throat sacking of Mark Hughes immediately after Manchester City's victory against Sunderland on 19 December with former Inter Milan manager Roberto Mancini immediately appointed in his place. Yet, despite the outrage over City's decision and their conduct, can anyone honestly say that City were either wrong in removing Hughes from office, or in the way they conducted their business?

First things first. As a Manchester United supporter of nearly 25 years, I have fond memories from my childhood of Mark Hughes as a player. In the early days of Manchester United establishing themselves as the all-conquering force they were to become in the 1990s and beyond, Hughes was a cornerstone of the United team and a player who had an uncanny knack of scoring a crucial goal at a vital time in order to rescue United, none more so than an equalising goal he scored in the FA Cup semi-final in 1994 against Oldham Athletic with 30 seconds of extra time remaining and United staring down the barrel of a defeat. United won the replay, defeated Chelsea in the final and completed a league and cup double, but without Hughes's intervention that afternoon, their season could easily have unravelled.

While I had fond memories of Hughes as a player and can remember the disappointment I felt on the day he left United to join Chelsea in 1995, I have been less impressed by some of his conduct as a manager, in which he has at times shown himself to be a bully and has shown a lack of respect to both his former manager at United, Sir Alex Ferguson and also to Arsene Wenger. Now, you might say this is a good thing that he is not scared to ruffle a few feathers and does not constantly fall in awe of the established order. I have no problem with that as long as you retain a respect for people that have achieved much in the game and at this point in his managerial career, Hughes seemed to show a distinct lack of respect to managers who had achieved far more in the game than he has mustered hitherto.

Hughes's dismissal was certainly a cut-throat, cold and calculated move. But the move was not a surprise and his position had been the subject of speculation for several months with a number of high profile names linked with the job. Hughes had not been appointed by the current Manchester City owners and their appointed hierarchy. He had been made manager by the former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who then relinquished his ownership not long afterwards in the wake of allegations of corruption. This led to the club being bought by a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family and the promise of untold riches.

Since last summer, City have demonstrated their financial muscle with a string of high profile signings, including Robinho for £32 million and the acquisition of Carlos Tevez from Manchester United (or technically from Carlos Tevez's owning company) for £47 million. There has been much speculation as to whether Hughes himself sanctioned these signings, or whether these were moves made by City's board so to show off the weight of their purchasing power. Robinho in particular has only fleetingly shown glimpses of his true potential and it is speculated that he is eyeing a move back to Spain, where a pack-a-mack is less likely to be needed.

Despite spending over £40 million on defenders during the summer, as well as also signing Tevez, Adebayor and Santa Cruz to bolster their forward line, City were only in sixth place at the point at which Hughes was relieved of his duties. In normal circumstances, sixth place would be an acceptable position and City have lost only two league games in the first half of the campaign, the fewest of any team in the top flight this season so far. But the flip side to that has been that City had won only two of their last ten league matches under Hughes, drawing seven of them. Of his signings, only goalkeeper Shay Given, midfielder Gareth Barry and his fellow Welshman Craig Bellamy have been successful acquisitions while some of his other signings have rarely justified their fee.

In most clubs' predicaments, a top six place at the halfway point in the season and two losses would be gladly accepted. But the mistake that the media are making is that Manchester City are no longer in the realms of an ordinary club. The amount of investment that has been put into the club has seen to that. Manchester City is a "project" to its owners, they only want to be involved for a finite amount of time while it serves their interests, achieves it purpose and they will then move on. But for the project to meet its needs, Manchester City will need to win trophies on the pitch. Finished in the top six is not good enough for them, they have to be seen to be in contention for trophies, although it is worth considering that they soon to play in the Carling Cup semi-final against Manchester United.

Mark Hughes said in the aftermath of his dismissal that he was on target to meet Manchester City's pre-season objectives of making the top six and reaching 70 points. That may well be the case, but what he may have overlooked is that events elsewhere may have seen City's owners move the goalposts. At the start of the campaign, most observers would have expected that the established elite quartet of Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool would be the top 4 sides at the end of the campaign, not necessarily in that order. This would not have been an unreasonable prediction given that these teams have occupied the top 4 places in the Premier League in each of the past four seasons.

However, the regression of Liverpool this season has meant a place in the top four is up for grabs and City's owners will no doubt have expected their team to fully capitalise on this. That they have not done so and that both Tottenham and Aston Villa are currently ahead of them in the table despite having fewer resources available to them is likely to be what triggered the City power brokers' dissatisfaction in Hughes and questioned his ability to continue to be the right man for the job.

Roberto Mancini was appointed to the job and it would seem that he was first approached several weeks before he actually was installed in post. This will not sit well with some well meaning people, but the consequences of City sacking a manager and not having someone immediately available to take over would have been counter-productive from their point of view. Whether Mancini remains in the hot seat in the long term remains to be seen. Although his haul of three Serie A titles with Inter Milan seems impressive, in reality this was only possible due to the match fixing episode in Italy that weakened their rivals. The first of those titles was won by virtue of two teams finishing above Inter both being disqualified while the next title was won with Juventus having been relegated to the Italian second division as punishment and AC Milan having been docked 20 points. With a World Cup next summer, one or two high profile coaches could become available after the finals that City may wish to consider.

It has been suggested that the sacking of Hughes could result in some mutiny among Manchester City players unhappy at his removal from office and understandably the volatile Craig Bellamy has already been rumoured to have had a difference of opinion with Mancini, a rumour that will have been further strengthened by Bellamy's removal from the starting line-up against Stoke on Boxing Day. I am not sure this mutiny will surface though as players ultimately have a duty to be professional to their club, regardless of who is picking the team and with a World Cup looming on a horizon, players will want to ensure they are playing regularly in order to make sure they are in prime form come the summer.

Changing manager at the time they did means that City can bring in some more signings in the summer, possibly "name" signings that will be to the liking of City's top brass and who will signal their statement of intent from now on. While their Chief Executive Garry Cook's corporate tubthumping and promise to make Manchester City the biggest club in the world seems a little ahead of itself given that they need to establish themselves as the biggest club in their city first, there is no question that City's owners expect an immediate return on their investment and will expect a top four finish at the end of the season so that they can push on and challenge for the Premier League title next season. You may say City need to walk before they can run, but that does not appear to be an option that their owners wish to entertain.

Political party leaders to appear in televised debates before the election
It was announced last week that all three of the leaders of the main political parties in the United Kingdom will appear in three separate televised debates prior to the General Election. The election can take place no later than May 2010, but there has been some recent speculation that an election could be called early in the New Year and will take place in March. The three debates are likely to take place each on separate television networks, with Sky News showing one debate, the BBC another and ITV showing the third. This move is a good one in terms of fairness but also having three different chairs for the debates should ensure that a wide spectrum of issues are covered.

It is good that these debates will be televised and will be broadcast live into people's sitting rooms as it at least means that the public have the opportunity to hear what the three main political parties have to offer, what style of leadership each leader would adopt and what solutions each party have to the current political, social, economic and environmental challenges facing the world, and more pertinently, this country. That way, when you hear someone say that all political leaders "are as bad as each other" you will at least hope they have reached this conclusion having watched the televised debates and heard what each of the wannabe residents of 10 Downing Street have had to say.

The party leaders giving their consent to their attendance at these debates is all well and good, but the debates will only be useful exercise if they are chaired effectively and if there is an opportunity for audience participation, with a range of questions on a whole host of subjects being asked and not just a series of planted questions that suit the soundbites, causes and agendas of any one of the three main leaders. There are obviously some common themes that the public would like clear answers to so they can make a rational and informed decision on where to place their cross on the ballot paper on election day. These will include such hot potatoes as asylum, law and order, education, the health service, taxation and the management of the economy. But there are likely to be other fringe issues of interest to some voters and which will most likely have a major bearing on what way they will vote. It is important then that the format of the programme allows this and that the chair finds the right balance between giving each leader enough time to speak but also allowing enough topics to be covered.

The role of the host will be a crucial one in ensuring that the three leaders answer the questions posed with minimal repetition, deviation and hesitation. Although the three amigos will get more than a minute to elaborate on their given subjects, it is likely that the programmes will last no more than an hour and when you consider that two of the debates will be on commercial channels at prime time when product placement is of paramount importance to the advertisers, in reality there could only be a 50 minute window in which four or five topics and/or questions will need to be covered. Therefore, the host will need to ensure that the typical evasive qualities associated with political figures is kept to a minimum to keep things moving but they should also challenge anyone caught dodging a question they do not like the content of to provide a straight answer.

One would suspect that Adam Boulton, Sky News's political correspondent will be charged with chairing the debate on their network. In canine terms, Boulton is a Jack Russell among political interviewers. He may occasionally be an ankle biter but his bark is much worse than his bite. There are certainly more political heavyweights around who the party leaders would much rather not be interrogated by. There would be no shortage of figures at the BBC who could be candidates for chairing their debate, ranging from the staple part of their election night coverage, that cuddly Labrador David Dimbleby as well as the occasionally deceptively vicious German Shepherd with big ears, Andrew Marr.

But to make the debate more of a spectacle and to provide the triumverate of leaders the most amount of discomfort, I would advise selecting one of the BBC political Rottweilers who will be prepared to rip some flesh if the questions are not suitably answered. I am referring to either Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys. I would expect Dimbleby to be the safe appointment that the BBC will make, but it would be a more entertaining spectacle if Paxman was put in the hotseat and allowed to show the same disdain for the party leaders that he usually reserves for students with no knowledge of Shakespeare.

Over at ITV, with Sir Trevor McDonald having pretty much retired, it is hard to see who they would ask to chair their debate other than one of the regular two presenters of News At Ten, although I suppose the possibility of the dreaded Piers Morgan hosting their showpiece could not be ruled out given that he appears to be retained by their network these days. Let's just hope no-one raises this possibility to the execs at ITV.

As we have determined, the role of host is going to be very important for each of these debates but the format of the shows will play a part in how useful they are too. Ideally, you would want the shows to work to a format something like this. The show allows for time for 4 main questions to be asked by the assembled audience, possibly 5 in the case of the BBC debate where there will be no interruptions for "important messages". Each leader will get a chance to answer the question and say what their party's stance is and there should be time for there to be open discussion, indeed argument between the other leaders. But a balance has to be found between this type of discussion and allowing the debate to degenerate into a diatribe of "this is what 13 years of Labour Government has given you". As with Question Time, there should be some opportunity for supplementary comments to be made by audience members to raise points that were not covered in the politicians' answers.

It is also to be hoped that at the end of the programme, adequate time is provided for each leader to have their own two minute soliloquy where the rostrum is entirely theirs and they use the 120 seconds to state exactly why they should be leader of the country, what changes they would bring and why they feel they can do it better than the other assembled candidates. This is, after all, what a candidate for a job would be expected to do in front of an assembled interview panel to convince them that they are the only person who they should consider for the job. Admittedly, this will be an interview panel of upwards of 100 members of a studio audience and somewhere in the region of 7 or 8 million television viewers rather than just 3 people in an air conditioned office, but a good performance in this section could seal the deal.

Televised debates are a key part of the American election build-up and although there are times when we are right to tire of the American influence on popular culture in the United Kingdom, this would seem to be a very powerful way of reaching out to a public that finds itself somewhat disengaged in politics and apathetic towards its politicians in the wake of the expenses scandal, but still all the more immersed in the cult of celebrity and its many pitfalls and hypocrisies. A good showing in one of these debates may not be enough on its own to win an election, but a weak showing from one of the leaders could certainly be enough for them to lose it. But at least putting the main protagonists in a prime time televised slot to discuss the key issues at least means that those who claim not be informed about politics have no excuse for their ignorance should they not know what they will do come election day.


That's just about it from me for today. This is likely to be my last blog of 2009 and so I would just like to say thanks to those of you who have been kind enough to read my blog during this year. I apologise for the periods when I have been absent from writing duties and I hope to post more frequently during 2010. That's one New Year's resolution I hope not to have broken by January 5th! All that remains is for me to wish you all a Happy New Year and I hope that 2010 delivers the prosperity, good health and sweet smell of success that you are aspiring to.

Now is our autumn of discontent

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.