Ringing tills, splattering eggs and pigs in Photoshop

Hello again.

Well, so much has happened since I last sat at this keyboard. We have seen the world's first £80 million footballer, of which there will be more discussion in a moment. Also, we have seen the less than encouraging developments of 2 BNP candidates being elected to the European Parliament, which I will also cover further down. And then, just when you thought it had disappeared off the radar this week there was news that the swine flu pandemic had reached a grade 6. This was quite surprising news to me. I mean, who honestly realised that pigs could play the piano?

Perhaps the most bizarre story of the week concerned the revelations that the one millionth word had entered the English dictionary. It turned out that the word in question really wasn't a word at all but some technical geek speak in the form of web2.0. Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought that words needed to exclusively contain letters of the alphabet in order to qualify as a word and they also needed to consist of one word, not a series of words tagged together. Does that mean that you could nominate one of the blank tiles in Scrabble as a number in future play? Me thinks these crazy boffins haven't thought this one through.

Anyway, it has been a week of many stories worth discussing, so let me now do that very thing.

1. Everybody has their price
Well, news that there is an economic crisis does not appear to have reached the power brokers in the world of football, with Real Madrid currently throwing money around with reckless ease in the manner that a wedding party reveller would throw around confetti. In the past week, Real have spent the grand sum of £139 million on the signing of two admittedly prodigious footballing talents, Brazilian midfield playmaker Kaka and the jewel in Manchester United's crown in recent seasons, Cristiano Ronaldo.

To the footballing layperson, such figures must seem preposterous. To the average football fan struggling to make ends meet, let alone be able to afford to watch their favourite team live, it must seem just as obscene. And I suppose really, from an ethical standpoint, it is. How can one justify such vast amounts of money being thrown around for anyone in what essentially is an entertainment industry? The bald facts, however, are that top football clubs are multi-million pound corporate businesses just in the same way that ICI or Cable and Wireless are, and it is a dog-eat-dog world out there, where clubs will be prepared to sell their soul to the devil, or pay vast amounts of money to the Red Devils in order to seek to gain competitive advantage.

Fans of American sports, particularly American Football and NBA basketball will point to the American model of sport as being the benchmark for addressing the vast inequalities in the distribution of wealth that exist in club football. It was an irony not lost on the media this week that for £20 million more than it cost Real Madrid to sign Cristiano Ronaldo, the whole club of Newcastle United football club could be bought, right down to the last breeze blocks. However, it is hard to envisage the American model of equality ever working in European football. For one, there is a very powerful cartel among Europe's leading football clubs that would never allow such a system to be introduced.

Secondly, it is hard to see a transfer system being imposed where at the end of the season, the best players would be forced to go to a lesser team. In the US, the weaker teams get the top picks out of the upcoming college players for the next season. There is no such college system that exists in Europe, because players go straight into football at the age of 15 and 16 and abandon their studies. Expecting established players to move to lesser clubs in order to address the discrepancies in the league is a nice ideal and all that, but the chances of it ever happening in European football are the same as Charlton Athletic's average score last season, nil.

There will come a point in time where the gap between the haves and have nots are such that, I would expect League One and League Two in English football will become a semi-professional outfit, in order for the clubs at that level to survive. There are 92 clubs in English football and given the disparity in the distribution of wealth in the league pyramid, the time will come where several clubs in the lower leagues are going to be forced to the wall unless player wages come down. You only need to look at the problems that relegated teams from the English Premier League have had in recent seasons. The three relegated teams from the Championship in season 2008/09 were Southampton, Charlton and Norwich. All three of those clubs were in the Premier League as recently as the 2004/05 season. But failure to return to the top flight at the first attempt meant that they lost their parachute payments and consequently, each club has been plunged into a financial black hole. In Southampton's case, they have been unable to pay their players during the past two months, during which time they have fallen into administration.

Leaving this aside for the moment, let's get back to considering the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo and the merits of his move to both the buying and selling parties. Eyes will be raised about why a player would leave a club that has won its domestic championship in each of their last three seasons, as well as having reached two successive Champions League finals would leave to join a team that has gone three years without winning a trophy and has not won the Champions League trophy since 2002. On the surface, you would think that such a move would be a backward step for a player that has aspirations to be regarded as the best player in the world. Certainly you would if you have an allegiance to Manchester United, as the author has no desire to hide!

It is not quite simple as that, however. Real Madrid are not like any other club in world football, something that I came to appreciate at first hand when I toured their ground on a friend's stag trip just over a year ago. What really strikes you when you walk around Madrid's museum is the incredible history that the club has. Wherever you go around the museum, you are reminded of the club's glorious past and its former heroes, right back to Ferenc Puskas and Alfredo Di Stefano in the 1950s and 1960s right up to more modern heroes like Zinedine Zidane, Raul and David Beckham. Real have not always been the top club in Europe, in fact they went over 30 years without winning the European Cup before eventually winning it again in 1998. But even during those barren years, they could still attract some of the best players in the world at that time.

There is always an allure among the top players to play for Real Madrid at some point in their careers, particularly for those with more Narcissus tendencies as Cristiano Ronaldo has tended to demonstrate in his career to date. Ronaldo certainly wants to win the big pots, but there is a part of him that craves the attention and the adoration that goes with being a world class individual talent. Madrid as a club have always embraced players with star quality, not least because of the lucrative marketing opportunities that this generates. Sales of replica shirts with Ronaldo or Kaka on the back are as much of an attraction to Real's power brokers as results on the pitch.

The recent re-election of Florentine Perez as Real Madrid's President has played a part in Real's purchasing power. The presidential system may be somewhat alien to people that only sport in this country, but what happens is that Spain's top clubs elect a president every few years and much like a president in a political sphere has a manifesto that is set out to appeal to the electorate, so the footballing equivalents have their manifestos that make or break their candidacy. Except that theirs are not so much manifestos as wishlists, or rather, a list of guarantees. Perez's winning manifesto will have been along the lines of "If you elect me, I will buy you Kaka, Ronaldo and Ribery". Well, as Meat Loaf once broke glass from ten paces in emphasising, two out of three ain't bad.

Real's purchasing power is all well and good, but it would fair to argue that it will not guarantee them success on the pitch. After all, during Perez's previous spell as President, Real were the very definition of "Galacticos". This word has negative connotations in that it describes that Real had a group of all stars in the shape of Zidane, Raul, Beckham, the original Ronaldo, Roberto Carlos and Luis Figo and yet for all this, their success on the pitch was less than dominant. They failed to win the Champions League during David Beckham's time at the club, while both Valencia and Barcelona claimed Spanish titles as often as they did themselves.

One of the principal reasons for Real's failure to dominate either their domestic league or European football back in the early part of this decade was that they only purchased star attacking players. To Perez's mind, defensive players do not put bums on seats and so he will not sanction big money purchases of top notch stoppers. It is true that supporters prefer to see the great attacking players show off their skills, but it is a fact of the game that the best teams need to be balanced, as witnessed by Barcelona's recent victory in the Champions League final. So, while Real throwing money at top class attacking players is all well and good, until they sort out their vulnerable defence and make their midfield stronger, their chances of conquering Europe will not be huge. This is a team that has not even made the last four of the Champions League since 2003.

Their great rivals both in Spain and on the European stage will be Barcelona and it is hard to imagine the Catalonians relinquishing their supremacy any time soon. Not only do Barcelona possess arguably the best player on the planet currently in Lionel Messi, but they have the most balanced team and particularly have a midfield that is unstoppable when in possession of the ball, as their lead protagonists Xavi and Andres Iniesta showed in the Champions League final recently. No team has successfully defended the Champions League since that format was introduced in 1992, but this Barcelona team is definitely good enough to be capable of achieving that feat. So Real signing two players, even of such high class that Ronaldo and Kaka possess is no guarantee of success.

The question you ask then is, were Manchester United right to accept Real's £80 million bid for Cristiano Ronaldo, given that the player has been such a crucial factor in Manchester United's recent success on the pitch. My answer to this would have to be an emphatic yes. Every player has his price and in Real's case, they have actually paid beyond Ronaldo's true value. The biggest problem that Manchester United will face in replacing Ronaldo is that, in essence, they will need to sign two players to replace him because on the one hand, they will need to sign a pacy, tricky right wing player, but in addition to that they will also be needing to sign a forward that is able to score a significant amount of goals, especially as United are also likely to lose Carlos Tevez during the coming weeks.

But United will no doubt be intending to reinvest the vast majority of the money they recoup from the Ronaldo sale into bringing in reinforcements for the new season, plus they should have around another £20-25 million to spend from this season's transfer budget as well as the seemingly imminent sale of striker Frazier Campbell to Hull City. A budget of around £105 million would be enough for United to sign a right wing player and a centre forward, as well as strengthening in other positions where players are required. This will be particularly so in midfield where both Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes are heading towards their retirement, while Owen Hargreaves has serious injury doubts and Anderson has much to prove. The only danger is that the footballing world will now know of United's newly generated income and consequently, will hike up the price of any player that they covet.

The sale of Ronaldo ultimately was justified because it has been clear from the player's body language over the past season that he has been kept at Old Trafford under duress. Just last summer speculation was rife that Ronaldo would be heading to the Bernabeu, but it took all of Sir Alex Ferguson's powers of persuasion to keep the Portuguese flyer at Old Trafford. The past season has done little to allay fears that Ronaldo's heart lay in Madrid. It would be churlish to suggest that this was evident because Ronaldo did not play as well last season as in the previous two campaigns, because there simply was no way he could top those campaigns. However, his dissatisfaction was evident in his posturing and frustration towards team mates and it became clear that he was far from happy when discarding his tracksuit when he was substituted in United's win near the end of the season against Manchester City and just about signed his resignation note when openly criticising Sir Alex Ferguson's tactics in the aftermath of United's defeat in the Champions League final.

The mantra at Manchester United has always been that no one player is bigger than the club and time and again that has proven to be the case. Eric Cantona's retirement was supposed to be the end of United's domination and yet two years later, the team achieved the still unprecedented treble. David Beckham's departure to Madrid after being caught by a flailing boot was supposed to be a hasty move from which United would never recover and yet United simply replaced him with Ronaldo. Ruud Van Nistelrooy's sale at the end of the 2005/06 season was meant to be a disaster, especially when United did not replace him with a ready made replacement. And yet, in the three seasons since the big Dutchman left Old Trafford, his former employers have won three consecutive league titles. During Van Nistelrooy's five season stay in Manchester, they had won the title only once.

All of this tells us that the sale of one player, however influential, does not mean the demise of Manchester United. Instead, what it means is that the team takes stock and other players will take more responsibility. Just as Beckham and Van Nistelrooy's sales gave Cristiano Ronaldo more licence to become the crucial player he has been to United's cause these past two or three seasons, so now the baton of progress is passed to some of United's other players.

I think this is an excellent opportunity for Wayne Rooney to prove what a quality performer he is. Rooney has just enjoyed a top class campaign for both club and country and Ronaldo's sale is likely to mean that he is afforded more opportunity to play in his best position and to have the team built around his strengths. I also expect next season to be a defining campaign for Dimitar Berbatov, after a first campaign at Old Trafford in which many felt he went through the motions. Expect his contribution to come to the fore in 2009/10. Above all though, just remember that Manchester United and Sir Alex Ferguson are at their most dangerous when they are a wounded animal.

2. Silent majority only have themselves to blame
There are times in life when you see something in the news and you make a grim forecast of an event that will follow and you take no satisfaction from being proved right when that very event comes to fruition. Unfortunately, this was one such week when that scenario came to pass when the news broke that the British National Party had won two seats in the European Parliament. Pardon the pun, but this development hardly left me feeling egg-static.

As I argued on these pages some weeks ago, there was always a danger that the European elections would give a platform to the cranks and loonies of the world , not least because of the current outpourings of protest voting. Sadly though, it would seem that the electorate's approach to protest voting was not so much to vote with their feet as to superglue their seated positions to their comfy armchairs and DFS sofas. I have thought for some time that apathy is a national dish in the UK and it came fully served with coleslaw for the Euro elections, with just a paltry thirty seven per cent of the eligible electorate bothering to show up to put their cross in the box.

It reminds me of an article I read way back in the autumn of 2000 when I was in my final year of studying at university and one day I recall collecting some information for an assignment I was doing on European Integration, a subject that I have always had a passing interest in. There I was in the computer room one rainy November afternoon, idly discussing some information that would be useful to put into an assignment, when I stumbled across a nugget of information on the Internet that has stayed with me ever since. The piece of information was that people aged between 18 and 35 were more likely to vote in the Big Brother final (which at the time had only been going for one series) than they were to vote in a European election. I mean, what does it say when people can choose between voting to keep a bunch of misfits and cranks in an overpopulated house but would rather choose who wins a reality TV series!

Frivolity aside, this is a disturbing insight into people's sense of priority and it is every bit as relevant now in 2009 as it was back when this trend had identified back at the start of the decade. The cult of mini celebrity has grown larger with each passing year and every one of us is consumed by the power of celebrity every time we pick up a newspaper or turn on a television, even if the newspaper of choice is a broadsheet. Even Newsnight feels compelled to discuss celebrity and all its trappings every now and again, much to the legendary Jeremy Paxman's rolling eye disgust.

Public apathy towards politicians is nothing new but it has been significantly heightened by the recent expenses shenanigans and also the continual economic difficulties that the United Kingdom faces. Therefore, public discontent was always likely to play a huge part in the European election results. Unfortunately, the most ugly aspects of the recent self-pity Britain tone that has been carried by the newspapers and the broadcast media reared its ugly head when you look at some of the trends from last weekend's elections.

The biggest winners from the European elections were the Conservative Party and the UK Independence Party, while the Green Party enjoyed some moderate success. The Labour Party were the party that took the biggest fall from the election, and that was to be expected in the current climate. The other party that also suffered in the Euro elections were the Liberal Democrats, and on first impressions, their failure was more surprising given that their party was far less tarnished by the expenses row than either the Labour Party or the Conservatives.

On closer scrutiny though, there is a clear and sadly insular reason for these two parties bearing most of the public's ire. Both parties are primarily supporters of integration in the European Union and it appears that one of the current hot potatoes with the people that actually did vote is the thorny issue of immigration. You sense that the phrase "British jobs for British people" that Gordon Brown so unwisely uttered a few months ago has remained in the public consciousness. It would seem that when people mention immigration, they are often not making any distinction between people who are quite legally living and working in Britain as foreign nationals and those that are living here without conforming to the rules.

This rather xenophobic attitude seems to be a bi-product of the fever of self-pity that I have previously made reference to. People feel threatened because their jobs are in danger, while foreign nationals could possibly stand to benefit most from their predicament. Rather than wallowing in self-pity, however, some of these people should escape their comfort zone, stop thinking the world owes them a living and ask themselves why it is that people from overseas are being considered for their jobs? Yes, money does come into it, naturally so at a time of recession, but it certainly is not the only reason. Particularly within manufacturing and construction industries, foreign nationals may have skills that the incumbents do not possess or have no desire to learn.

When things go wrong, people are all too quick to look for scapegoats and targets to blame for their predicament rather than looking in the mirror and seeing what they could do differently to improve their prospects. Now, this is where the BNP come in. Their typical voter, so we are informed, is a young, working class person living in an area where poverty is high and education standards are low and people are likely to form their opinions on the world from their own struggles and from the editorial in The Sun. Because they live in an area where prospects are low, let's say somewhere like Burnley, which is a traditional BNP stronghold which has also traditionally seen jobs in factories, the average young person with no prospects is likely to blame their lot on Johnny Foreigner.

One has to wonder, however, if some of these people could be more proactive about their plight, either by undertaking the necessary skills training in order to qualify for a trade, or by being willing to move to another area where job opportunities are greater. At times of recession, much of the unemployment is structural, with certain parts of the country being affected more than others. Therefore, if people in these areas were prepared to be more flexible then their prospects would be far more enhanced.

The Freedom of Movement of Labour is a compulsory element to being signed up to the European Union and because of this imposition, those that have been affected most negatively by the current economic crisis are railing against the United Kingdom being part of an integrated Europe and would like a referendum at the very least. It does seem to me, however, that people forget that this freedom is in fact a two way arrangement. Just as our borders have been opened up to nationals from the EU's other 26 member states, so the borders to Poland, Estonia, Denmark, the Czech Republic et al are open to Brits. Surely the opportunity to enrich oneself on a personal level by immersing themselves in another culture and learning another language is something to be considered as a positive life changing experience? Or do we want to always want to hang on to the island mentality of only looking inwards?

So, let's get back to the BNP. Was the election of their two candidates to the European Parliament a sign that xenophobia and insularity is on the rise and that people are looking out for number one? I think that is true up to a point, but I think a context also needs to be applied. The two areas in which the BNP had candidates elected did not see a steep rise in BNP votes. In fact, in one area where the BNP were elected, the BNP's total votes were down in comparison to 2004. It just so happened that the overall turnout was also down and so they had a sufficient share of the vote in order to gain a seat. Incidentally, you would not see a better argument against proportional representation than these European elections.

In total, the BNP acquired six per cent of the vote across Britain, but let's remind ourselves that this was in fact six per cent of thirty-seven per cent that actually turned out to vote. So in actual fact, less than two per cent of the eligible voting population wilfully voted for Nick Griffin and his band of not entirely merry men. Fair to say, therefore, that the BNP's agenda was not pulled over the eyes of the vast majority of the nation.

It does remain pertinent, however, to look at how and why a party with such sinister motives can attract enough of the vote in order to have elected members and therefore what lessons more established parties can learn from this development. The self-pity Britain factor and animosity towards immigrants comes into the equation. So too, does the current mistrust of the established order among the leading political parties and figures. There are other elements too. I think that some more misguided people saw the media's and senior politician's pleas for people not to vote for a far right party as red rag to a bull and it symbolised the action of voting against the establishment. If that was the case, it was a foolhardy way of making the point. Equally, some other misguided voters possibly saw the BNP as representing the views of those that despise political correctness and the causes of political correctness. The irony here is that the BNP's views have in some part caused some of the political correctness that exists in the UK with their vitriolic opinions.

The strange part is that when it comes to actual policies that the BNP are willing to admit to, their policies are aligned much less with the far right and more with the far left. This is a party that claims to support nationalisation and the abolition of the monarchy. Neither of these are policies that are traditionally favoured by those with blue blood but are more in keeping with the fervent socialist wing of Old Labour. Of course, it is these very same people who have been most affected by the recession and feel the most amount of self-pity to their plight, hence it would be natural for the BNP to target such a vulnerable group.

It is to be hoped that when the General Election comes around, either in the autumn this year or in the spring of 2009, that the main political parties have managed to get their acts together and realise that the public are fed up with the old order making the same promises and the same mistakes and taking advantage of the privileges that come with the jobs they are elected to, with some notable exceptions. Pigs might fly I suppose, but the alternative is too gruesome to ponder. But, if sixty-three per cent of the voting nation cannot be bothered to turn up to vote, unfortunately the silent majority only have themselves to blame for what we are given.

3. Knowledge should come before point scoring
The recent Government reshuffle saw its share of controversial appointments, particularly in view of there being two high profile posts created for people that are not elected MPs, in addition to an elevation for Lord Mandelson of Slimeville, a man for whom the phrase "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" has never been more apt. It was the appointment of Sir Alan Sugar, soon to be rebranded as Lord Sugar, that appears to have generated most controversy and had most column inches devoted to it.

Sugar, it is known, is both a champion of entrepreneurship and a long standing ally of Gordon Brown's and of the Labour Government. His recent media profile has been significantly enhanced and exposed through his involvement in The Apprentice, which after five series continues to sustain its popularity. Sugar, being the wily operator that he is, has never missed the opportunity to make the most of this newly gained profile and put it to use for the greater good of the business community by travelling the country to promote entrepreneurship and apprentice schemes. Say what you like about Sugar as a person, but this is certainly putting something back into business.

The news of Sugar's appointment as the new Enterprise Czar does throw up some interesting challenges and questions, not least about whether Sugar will be able to continue his involvement in the programme that helped give him this platform in the first place. Sugar's credentials for the newly created role should not be in any doubt if he is being assessed purely from a knowledge and an experience perspective. The man worked his way up from nothing in order to become a multi-millionaire and is far more aware of the pitfalls and challenges that face any small business that is starting up. This is insight that the average civil servant in Westminster simply cannot provide.

Where Sugar's problems lie are that however much he would like to believe otherwise, his new role is a politically affiliated one. Sugar's claim that his role was "politically neutral" is an uncharacteristically naive comment from the usually wise sage. His role involves him sitting in the House of Lords as a Labour peer, working for the Labour Government, advising the said Government on policy to put forward in order to support small businesses. Sugar will argue that he is offering his support in an advisory capacity to a Government that sought him out, but his role in the House of Lords is one where he is representing the Labour Party and putting forward their motions. What he would like his role to be presented as, is in fact somewhat different to the reality.

As ever, the Conservative Party are opportunistically looking for a bandwagon to jump on and a small number of their MPs have put together a petition to ask that Sugar be removed from his job as chief hirer and firer on The Apprentice. While I can understand that there is a potential conflict of interest between Sugar's television role on the BBC, which likes to take maximum efforts to remain politically impartial, and his new role with the Government, am I alone in finding this bunch of blue blooded moralists actions just ever so slightly petty? I dare say the Daily Mail will be calling for honours for each of them, but then again, what the Daily Mail says is very rarely in keeping with what is for the greater good of the country.

I still believe that the next General Election will be held in the autumn, rather than next spring, which would mean, therefore, that by the time the next series of The Apprentice airs, the likelihood is that there will have been a change of Government and with it, Sugar's role with the Labour Government will have come to an end. This would mean that any political influence he could have had just by being on television would have been all over before it started. But putting this scenario aside for one moment, what is actually to be gained by removing Sugar from the television schedules? Who ends up winning the end game? Certainly not the television viewers who tune in to watch his brusk manner on The Apprentice. And his role as a business mentor would be much diminished if his role on television was no longer there. I do not imagine people would be tuning in to BBC Parliament to see him addressing the House of Lords.

As I said earlier, Sugar was certainly naive to take on his new role with the Government without paying more careful consideration to the effect this would have on his role with the BBC and his stewardship of The Apprentice, which we are led to believe he enjoys far more than his board room demeanour would sometimes suggest. But those that are slinging arrows in his direction need to realise that people finding their way in business need a mentor to look up to, someone who is in the media profile.

By taking Sugar off air, it is depriving people of access to a potential mentor when they are finding their way in setting up a small business. Just as Sir Richard Branson is a role model for many young entrepreneurs through his constant media presence, so Sugar too has become a mentor for many, as have the Dragons from television's Dragons' Den because they are all there in our living rooms. Take these people out of the media and who is there for the young aspiring businessman or woman to look up to?

Hopefully the BBC can see fit to overlook the cheap calls from the Conservative Party and beyond for Sugar to hear the words he has so often uttered at deluded, wannabe apprentices. Meanwhile, it is hoped that Sugar's Governmental role can become a more low key, advisory one where his attendance in the House of Lords is rarely needed and so the need to the stick to beat him with can be withdrawn for the foreseeable future. I get the impression, however, that this storm is going to continue erupting for some time.

4. A load of old balls
It would seem that Conservative MPs are making constructive use of their time in preparing for Government. Not content with trying to get a reality television personality sacked, another MP has really cut to the heart of the issues that truly matter to the British public at large. Take a bow Tony Baldrick, sorry Tony Baldry, Tory MP for North Lincolnshire, who claims that the use of soft balls in youth cricket is ruining the game at schools level.

To continue with the cricketing terminology, this line of thought left me stumped thinking 'Howzat' exactly. Firstly, is it really the best use of parliamentary time when we are in the midst of an economic crisis and MPs have been claiming on duck islands to raising this concern in the House of Commons? But beyond this, I am wondering how exactly Mr Baldry thinks that using a tennis ball or a wind ball is likely to be harmful to schools cricket? I would have thought that of far greater concern to the future of the game at schools level are the amount of school playing fields being sold off in order to make a tidy profit.

As with any sport that a child starts playing at a young age, it is unlikely that you are going to start off using the standard apparatus right from the start. I would expect most kids that take up cricket first play it in their back garden with a plastic bat and a tennis or soft ball, with a jacket acting as the stumps. This is partly for their own protection and partly for the well-being of Mrs Jones at number 42's greenhouse window. Once children start playing bat and ball sports at school, be it cricket or be it rounders, baseball or stoolball (if you live outside of Sussex or Kent you probably won't know what that is) then gradually the tennis ball will be replaced by either a wind ball or a hard ball depending on the age group and the proximity of the science lab to the playing fields.

This is just a gradual development, just as it is with any other sport. Children aren't likely to use a regulation grade 5 leather football until they are 10 or 11 years old. I remember the first time I used one at a similar age and it was nearly enough to put me off football for good as I remember that making a valiant save left me with a bloodied mouth from where the ball hit me full in the face. Similarly, I would expect that most children first learn to play tennis with a plastic racquet and a swingball in the back garden unless they are the product of very wealthy parents!

What does not change, regardless of what apparatus are used, are the rudiments of the technique required to play the sport. OK, so learning to bowl leg spin is perhaps more difficult when using a tennis ball or a wind ball than it is with a Kookaburra cherry, but the technique required to bowl it is exactly the same. A young budding cricketer can still execute cover drives with a plastic bat picked up from Brighton Pier as much as they can with a far heavier Gunn & Moore willow version. In fact, it makes sense to learn the technique of the game with the apparatus that you feel comfortable with before using the more "grown-up" equipment when you have become acclimatised and have honed your technique. A young golfer isn't going to start out by using a driver but by driving the green with an 8 iron at Roedean pitch and putt.

Let's not forget that cricket is at its most popular on the Asian sub-continent, in India and Pakistan, two countries where there is a significant divide between the rich and the poor, as was illustrated in India's case by the recent movie Slumdog Millionaire. In both of these countries, the game is often learnt by children using a taped up ball, while in the Caribbean, young West Indian cricketers first play the game on the beach using a rubber ball that has a skidding effect off of the sand. Seemingly, such experiences has not deterred the likes of Sachin Tendulkar, Wasim Akram or Brian Lara becoming world class cricketers and is more likely to have put hairs on their chests.

It concerns me at times that we are too concerned with exposing children to the realities of their chosen sports at too early an age, which in fact, has the effect of not nurturing the crucial aspect of skills. Football is a prime example of this. For so many years, representative leagues have played their Sunday morning matches from under-9s or under-11s level upwards on full size pitches. I think this has a detrimental effect because often it can mean the game passes some members of the team by. At a young age, the game should be more about giving children exposure on the ball and being constantly involved in matches rather than having so much emphasis on running. The time to focus on the athletic side of the game should come much later, when the teams get to their teenage years.

Those that are charged with running youth football in this country should get on the telephone to the BBC and ask if they have a DVD of a documentary that the BBC aired over ten years ago. The documentary was about Ajax's coaching academy and youth setup and was fronted by Gary Lineker, back in his very early days as a sports broadcaster. What was striking about the documentary was that Ajax's youth teams did not play on full size pitches until they were fifteen years old, but that every Ajax team from the under-10s right up to the senior team played the game "the Ajax way", using the same system and formation and played with an emphasis on skills.

Cynics will no doubt point to Ajax's lack of success in the past decade or so as testament that this approach no longer works. That would be a myopic point of view, however, as the main reason for Ajax's lack of success has been that they have had to sell their best players. They have still continued to nurture players of a high standard, with two of the current generation of Dutch stars in Rafael Van Der Vaart and Wesley Sneijder having risen through their ranks. Given that for a country with such a small population, the Netherlands have continued to produce technically gifted player after technically gifted player, there is a lot that this country can learn from their skills based schooling.

So, in summing up, it can be shown that Mr Baldry has missed the point and that his argument is in putting him on a sticky wicket, so to speak. The right honourable MP for North Lincolnshire should therefore think before he opens his mouth in future, unless he would like to be characterised as his soundalike's root vegetable of choice in a future tabloid publication.

5. Comedy is defined by audience and context
There was some discussion in the newspapers this week about the lack of female comedy performers, particularly on the stand-up circuit, within the public gaze. This discussion came in the light of Victoria Wood's observations that female comics made up a very small number on television comedy panel shows, such as Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You, where the male dominated panels tend to try and hog the limelight.

Ms Wood's observation that female comics make up a very small percentage of television panel shows is an accurate one. However, it could also be equally argued that the percentage of women appearing on such programmes is in fact representative of the number of female performers currently to be found on the stand-up comedy circuit. If you were to ask the average man or woman in the street to name ten female comedy performers, I think they would struggle unless they were a dedicated follower of the comedy circuit. Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders would be named, as would Catherine Tate and the aforementioned Victoria Wood, and quite probably Jo Brand. But the last two excepted, none of the others are really stand-up comediennes as such. If you asked this same hypothetical audience to pick Jo Caulfield or Lucy Porter out of an ID parade, I would expect there to be results almost as hilarious as their material.

So I suppose the question to be asked is whether female performers do not appear on panel shows purely because this is representative of their numbers on the circuit, whether it is due to some performers not wishing to appear on such panel shows where testosterone reins supreme or simply because they are not regarded as funny enough. My answer to this would be a combination of all three of these factors. There are only a finite number of renowned female stand-ups doing the rounds, there are some performers who are likely to be intimidated by dominating male comedians on television and there are some female comics whose humour is not best suited to a television audience, but is more suited to the edgy surroundings of a stand-up club or a theatre. This last point can, naturally, also apply to male comedians.

I think the important words when judging how funny a comedienne is and how suitable they are for the medium of television are audience and context. A lot of material that comediennes use in their routines is understandably aimed at a female audience and not unexpectedly, the target of much their humour are men folk. This is likely to appeal to the humour of a female audience but is often likely to make the male members of the audience cringe, particularly where a raw nerve is struck and the subject matter is delicate or embarrassing. Someone like Jo Brand, for example, is highly regarded by female comedy fans but quite often a figure of hate among male counterparts, primarily because her material is perceived to have an anti-male agenda. It is for a very similar reason that Loose Women is a television programme enjoyed by women as a guilty pleasure but often hated by men, although interestingly, that does not seem to deter male viewers from watching.

On television, panel shows like Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You have a broad, mainstream appeal and so they are not aimed at one particular gender over another, although it would not be unreasonable to forecast that there are likely to be more male viewers watching these shows than there will be female ones. The content of these shows, however, is a more topical output and so the kind of territory that a female comic will enter in their stand-up routines is likely to be reduced. Whereas there have been a number of male stand-up performers who have a certain amount of political overtones to their comedy and rely heavily on social commentary, female comics tend to focus more on feelings and interactions, as the female audience identifies more with this type of comedy.

There are certainly some very funny comediennes on the circuit, but I think there are reasons why there are not more of them to be found, particularly in terms of those that enter the public consciousness. One of the main problems, I feel could be one of self-esteem or perception. There is a tendency to judge women in a lot of fields by their appearance, and this is particularly true within any visual performing arts. Some wannabe comics may feel that they will judged as much by their appearance as they will be by their material. Others may feel pressure to look a certain way in order to be taken seriously, or may feel that some people believe the old stereotype of a comedienne being bitter and twisted and deprived of sex as still ringing true.

It possibly does to some narrow minded people, but the whole point of comedy is that it is supposed to challenge narrow minded views. Therefore, when someone goes to watch Lucy Porter, who is a very attractive and also a quite bubbly, likeable comedienne, you are drawn into thinking that she is too nice to be a comedienne and she talks to her audience in much the same way that you imagine she talks to her friends in the pub. The great thing about this is that Porter can actually make some quite outrageous, crude and bitchy comments about people in her act but get away with it than some other harsher comediennes would not be able to, simply because she is delivering the barbs in a witty and friendly way with her audience.

Porter is one of the few women that have made an appearance on Mock The Week and more than held her own with her male counterparts and perhaps a few of her female counterparts need to follow her lead and be adaptable to the audience. There are other female stand-ups who have a good following and who produce witty material, such as Shappi Korshandi and Zoe Lyons, but the acid test for whether their comedy will transfer to a television audience is how the context of their humour will transfer to a more mainstream audience than the ones they are used to performing to in a stand-up club. On the plus side though, if no-one finds them funny on television, they just will not be booked again rather than having to deal with hecklers or the rotten fruit treatment.

6. Humble pie for Ramsey's just desserts
If celebrities had an official rating, in much the same way that Public Limited Companies have a share price, there is little doubt that Gordon Ramsay's stock will have plummeted in the past few months. First of all, the clean cut family image that television's premier chef had cultivated through his F Word programmes was placed in tatters with the sordid tabloid revelations of his extra marital affairs. More recently came news of his wealth having taken a hit during the credit crisis, while there were also problems with one of his London restaurants.

Just when it could not get any worse for the well coiffured chef par excellence, Ramsay found himself hitting a new low this week after an ill advised Photoshop based attack on Australian chat show host, Tracy Grimshaw, in which Ramsay made disparaging comments about her before producing a Photoshop production mixing a pig's head with a female body and then comparing his digital artwork to the aforementioned chat show host. It is a sign that you have overstepped the mark when an Australian audience is offended and even the Australian Prime Minister got involved and referred to Ramsay as a "low life". Worse still, Ramsay found himself having to apologise to his mother for his churlish remarks.

Ramsay, much like Jeremy Clarkson, appears to be someone who polarises opinion in much the same way as Marmite. There are those that champion Ramsay as a genius of his craft and a standard bearer in his chosen profession. His critics, however, present Ramsay as a surly bully, who manipulates the media in order to raise his profile. You somewhat expect that if you were to take fifty per cent from column A and fifty per cent from column B, you would not be far from the truth.

Personally, I have generally held Ramsay in high regard. I am not a great fan of the celebrity chef set per se, and particularly dislike some of the jumped-up twerps that seem to be common amongst that group. The undisputed king of this group is Jamie Oliver, although honourable mentions (if honourable is the right word) also go out to James Martin, Anthony Worrell-Thompson and Hugh Fearnley-Cakestall, or whatever he is called. Ramsay, however, has always stood out from the crowd. He calls a spade a spade, his cookery programmes are interesting, even if they are not altogether politically correct. He understands that the food chain can sometimes be cruel, but that sometimes necessity has to come first. Above all though, there is an intensity and a passion about his food programmes that you do not get when watching some of his rivals in the television chef stakes.

Like all geniuses in their craft though, Ramsay does have a huge ego and he also has the capacity to self-destruct and this has been increasingly noticeable in recent months. Perhaps because of his vast success and the cutting edge nature of his programmes, Ramsay quite possibly felt that he was fireproof and that so long as the public were watching his programmes and buying his cookery books, then he could say and do whatever he liked. For a man of not inconsiderable bluster, this was a perfectly plausible mind set. But as the public have become more aware of his shortcomings and Ramsay's halo has slipped, so now the press have taken a sharp knife from his cutlery drawer and sunk it into his back.

Ramsay would seem to have been guilty of believing his own hype and got himself immersed in the cult of celebrity that has made casualties of lesser mortals. Whether Ramsay has taken his eye off the ball or not, it is to be hoped that he can find a happy medium between remaining the highly proficient, self-confident chef and businessman that backs his instincts while keeping that air of controversy about him, while at the same time, trying to show some more humility to those that have helped him to achieve his fame, not least the public who have watched his shows and been inspired to improve their culinary skills.

Ramsay is not a bad man, but he could be showing some signs of a mid-life crisis, that is being played out in a very public arena.


That's my lot for this evening. Hope you enjoyed reading and I will be back again for some more, hopefully next weekend.

Times are a changing

Evening folks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope not hate

I have come across this website, which I thought I would share with you. As you will be aware, given the current apathy there is with the three mainstream political parties and the politicians associated with them, there is a potential for a surge in support for fringe protest parties, not least those parties representing the secular far right views of the misinformed or downright ignorant members of the electorate. At the forefront of this are the British National Party, who will hope to tap into the current waves of self-pity Britain being perpetrated by the written and spoken media.

Unfortunately, I stumbled across the link to this site a little late in order for me to post it up here before the European elections, but nonetheless I feel that it is well worth visiting this site to serve as a reminder to us that whatever anger we feel towards the present Government and its most well established opposition, that looking to the BNP is not an alternative that is acceptable to anyone that appreciates the value of a democratic society or who wishes the United Kingdom to be a "free society". Just visiting the site I am linking will provide a number of revelations which for anyone out there that thinks the motives of the BNP have any merit, will have their eyes opened to their real, less than honourable intentions.

The campaign is called Hope Not Hate and the website is found via the following link - http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/content/home/suit . Go take a look.

History is not all bunk

Hello again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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