Who might win Sports Personality of the Year in 2013?

Chris Froome before the start, a photo by kristof ramon on Flickr.

Early indications are that Bradley Wiggins is a shoo-in for this year’s Sport’s Personality of the Year (SPOTY). My attention’s therefore been drawn to who might be in with a chance of winning the 2013 award. However, in a year without a football World Cup or Olympics, the contest could be pretty open. In this article, I gaze into the sporting crystal ball and consider possible contenders for the 2013 SPOTY prize.

Chris Froome

Given Team Sky’s success at this year’s Tour de France, there’s a fair chance that they’ll also be in the reckoning for the 2013 race. Second in this year’s race, Froome might have had a chance to win had he not been asked to play second fiddle to Bradley Wiggins. Team Sky’s manager, Dave Brailsford, has hinted that Froome will lead the team in next year’s Tour de France so must be counted as one of the favourites for the 2013 race. Cycling’s a well-supported sport in the Britain now so if Froome does win the Tour, he will undoubtedly be one of leading contenders for SPOTY 2013.

 
Jess Ennis

After her gold medal at this year’s Olympics, Jess Ennis will surely be one of the favourites to win the hepathlon at the 2013 World Athletics Championships in Moscow. Already a popular sports figure in Britain, Ennis will be bound to collect many votes if she does indeed become World Champion. Furthermore, there’s a strong chance that she won’t make the top three in this year’s SPOTY, meaning that she might gain votes next year in recognition for her achievements in 2012 too.

 
Matt Prior

In the absence of a major football tournament or Olympics next summer, the sports headlines are likely to be dominated by the Ashes series next year. Matt Prior will be crucial to England’s batting line-up, being able either to lead a run-chase, or bat out time as required. Both Ashes contests should be close encounters and Prior’s runs may be decisive in securing an English victory (especially if Alastair Cook sees a dip in form with the captaincy, and if the annoying version of Kevin Pietersen turns up). Also worth noting that the second Ashes series will take place while the SPOTY votes are being cast so Prior may benefit from additional exposure at just the right time.

 
Andy Murray

Having won his first grand slam earlier this year, Any Murray will be a leading contender in the major tournaments in 2013 too. Barring injury and a major loss in form, he must be regarded as being one of the favourites for Wimbledon next year. His popularity is also increasing so if he wins Wimbledon, we could well see him crowned the 2013 Sports Personality.

 
Kevin Sinfield

The Rugby League World Cup will be coming to British shores in 2013. Although Rugby League doesn’t get anywhere near the same attention in this country as Rugby Union does, it may become far more prominent next year with a home World Cup. There’s already been a major publicity drive for the tournament which inevitably will enter full swing next year. This coupled with the fact that England is currently third favourites for the World Cup, may help the tournament capture the public’s imagination. If it does, then leading Rugby League stars such as England captain Kevin Sinfield, may gain enough votes to be in with a shout for SPOTY.

Who would make the weakest England XI of the last 20 years?

FBL-EURO-2008-ENG-CRO, a photo by Milan Time on Flickr.

2012 has been a vintage year for British sport. Think of Andy Murray’s first Grand Slam victory, Bradley Wiggins winning the Tour de France, and the outstanding performances of British athletes at the Olympics and Paralympics. But, we must not forget that this is not normal. British sport and English football in particular is traditionally associated with mediocrity and under-achievement. This article celebrates and embraces this, outlining what might be the weakest XI that England has produced over the last 20 years.

Goalkeeper: Scott Carson

Was once tipped to be an international goalkeeping superstar. However, it’s fair to say that it never materialised... After showing early promise at Leeds and Liverpool things didn’t really go to plan with England. Instead, he is most renowned for an uncomfortable performance for England against Croatia, including that fumble.

Right-back: Luke Young

Must admit that this was a problem position given Gary Neville’s dominance over much of the period. Micah Richards and Glen Johnson have also proved reliable. Luke Young is chosen largely because he was so anonymous during his England career – so much so that when his international retirement was announced it barely featured in the headlines or entered the consciousness of England fans.

Centre-back: Neil Ruddock

Competent defender but hardly one of the stand-out players from Liverpool’s Spice Boys generation. To say that he was international class would be dubious in the extreme (especially when you think that Steve Bruce never played for England). Only capped the once by England – clearly didn’t take Terry Venables long to work out that Razor wouldn’t win Euro 96 for England.

Centre-back: John Terry (c)

Perhaps my most controversial choice. Chosen primarily as he’s clearly been the worst England captain over the last 20 years. Sacked twice from the job and a huge nuisance at the 2010 World Cup. Plus, I still maintain that had either Jonathan Woodgate or Ledley King had any fitness whatsoever, Terry would only have been capped a few times.

Left-back: Phil Neville

Again, perhaps an odd choice, especially as it’s worth considering that Steve Guppy has an England cap. However, there is some method to my madness. Phil Neville’s been a decent player, especially so in central midfield. He’s dreadful at left-back though and his performance against Romania in Euro 2000 is enough to earn him a place in my XI.

Right midfield: Kieron Dyer

Always had bags of ability but again is another one of those who couldn’t translate club form for England. His debut aside, most of his performances for England were ineffective and unmemorable. Apparently he has 33 international caps. And no, that’s not a typo.

Central midfield: Gavin McCann

Another one of those unmemorable players who was solid but unspectacular at domestic level. Much like Ruddock though, he clearly wasn’t international class. His only cap came during Sven’s first game in charge for England. Worth pointing out that he was chosen ahead of Steven Gerrard for this match…

Central midfield: Jordan Henderson

Even worse value for money for Liverpool than Andy Carroll has been so far (and that takes some doing). This makes it all the more incredible that Jordan Henderson has played tournament football for England. Still time for him to deliver on his full potential but surely Hodgson will have the sense to give Wilshere and Rodwell a chance first?

Left midfield: Lee Hendrie

Had established a decent reputation for himself at England U-21 level but it’s fair to say that this was not sustained. His time at Aston Villa showed that he had real potential but his career is more renowned for disciplinary issues and off-the-field problems. Little wonder then that his England career lasted less than 20 minutes. Aged 35, he currently plays for the world-renowned Tamworth FC.

Striker: David Nugent

Based on stats alone, you’d think I was being very harsh. One cap, one goal. However, let’s remember that his goal came against Andorra, and from about two inches out. When leaving Preston he tried to engineer a move to Everton. David Moyes said no. At Portsmouth, Harry Redknapp tried to sell him soon after buying him. Not good enough for mid-table Premiership teams yet deemed good enough for England…

Michael Ricketts

Called up to the England team off the back of scoring 15 goals for Bolton in the first half of the 2001/02 season. Looked horribly out of his depth though during his first and only match for England. Also worth bearing in mind that the 01/02 season is the only one where scored 10 or more goals. Prolific indeed.

Subs

Rob Green, Steve Guppy, John Scales, Seth Johnson, Fraizer Campbell, Kevin Davies

Why regeneration may not always be effective in tackling deprivation

            
Regeneration, a photo by western4uk on Flickr.

Regeneration is a term that’s been heavily used in the popular media over recent weeks. In particular, it’s been used in the context of the Olympic legacy – transforming an area of East London that was previously derelict and run-down into a thriving area that’s attractive to people. However, much of the coverage given to regeneration seems to assume that it’ll automatically tackle deprivation. This article however argues that we should not have such blind faith in the power of regeneration – if it’s not properly thought out it’s a policy goal that can exacerbate the problems it is trying to solve.

For me at least, regeneration means taking an area with run-down housing, stark social divisions, and lacking in businesses; and turning it into an area that is attractive, economically vibrant, and less socially divided. There are a number of ways that this can be achieved but traditionally regeneration involves overhauling local infrastructure, bringing in private sector investment and building new homes. However, in bringing about regeneration in such a manner, other issues spring up:


Very often when we talk about regenerating an area, we’re in reality talking about trying to gentrify it– improving the physical and economic landscape of a given place to encourage more affluent individuals to move there. This however, ignores the needs of residents that currently live there. In particular, building new homes exclusively for working professionals can raise local property prices so far that it drives locals out. Rather than revitalising an area for its current residents by tackling the root social and economic causes of deprivation, poorly thought out regeneration may simply look to increase the number of middle class inhabitants. Worse still, by driving locals out, you might just be shifting the original problem onto another area.

A second danger is brought by the fact that regeneration initiatives are often run top-down – led and controlled by large centralised organisations. This is hardly surprising given that regeneration requires the co-ordination of some many resources simultaneously that only large corporations and/or central government are capable of doing it. However, top-down regeneration risks producing facilities and buildings that the local population can’t use. In the case of public sector-led regeneration, we may get buildings or venues which local residents have little interest in. In the case of private sector-led regeneration, we may see the creation of jobs which locals aren’t suitable for or insufficiently trained to fill. In both cases, a top-down approach may mean that outsiders (who may already come from more affluent regions) see all the benefits from regeneration whilst the locals see little overall improvement in their lot.

Before I end, it’s worth pointing out that regeneration shouldn’t be disregarded as a policy option. Clearly there’s nothing inherently wrong in trying to improve an area and tackle deprivation. Indeed, there are examples where regeneration has widely been regarded as having been effective (e.g. Glasgow since the early 1990s and Liverpool over the past decade). However, as this article has argued, regeneration isn’t the silver bullet to addressing deprivation that it is often made out to be. Too often it is more concerned about attracting the affluent to a region as a short-to-medium term fix. To be really effective, regeneration needs to improve the root social and economic conditions that cause deprivation in the first place. This means placing the needs of an area’s current residents at the heart of policy.

Why Ferrari should consider Kamui Kobayashi for 2013

Kamui Kobayashi Sauber C30 2011 F1 Singapore Grand Prix, a photo by Zip250 on Flickr.

There’s lots of speculation right now as to what the Formula 1 driver line-ups will be in 2013. Ferrari are at the centre of much of the gossip. Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Mark Webber, Sergio Perez, Robert Kubica and seemingly most of the grid has been linked with the Ferrari seat currently occupied by Felipe Massa. However, there’s one man who’s not been talked about and who to my mind at least, would be the perfect choice – Kamui Kobayashi.

The main thing Ferrari will be looking for is someone who’ll be a regular podium contender but who won’t be quick enough to challenge Fernando Alonso for the championship. In Kobayashi, Ferrari would have someone who regularly qualifies in the top 10 and has demonstrated overtaking skills to match the very best on the grid. With the right equipment, he clearly has the potential to win multiple grand prix but probably not championships – an ideal scenario for Ferrari.

Linked to this is a second factor, Ferrari’s system of having designated No.1 and No.2 drivers. Many drivers won’t put up with this and it certainly caused issues in Ferrari’s recent talks with Button and Webber. However, it might well be easier to get someone like Kobayashi on board as a No.2 driver. Under normal circumstances he wouldn’t come close to getting a seat with Ferrari and might be more receptive to playing second fiddle to Alonso in return for a competitive car. Furthermore, there’s the added incentive that a solid year at Ferrari will put him in the frame for a more prolonged stay at either Red Bull or Mercedes who should have seats available from 2014. The longer term rewards might make Kobayashi more willing to put up with the short-term inconveniences he could face at Ferrari.

Even if Ferrari can offer prospective drivers an equal standing with Alonso, there’s an additional issue that the Ferrari seat is only likely to be available for one year given the rumours of a contract with Sebastian Vettel for 2014. For that reason, Ferrari won’t be able to attract the top tier of drivers: the likes of Hamilton and Raikkonen will feel they are worthy of multi-year contracts. Ferrari therefore will have a limited pool of drivers then can pick from. The likes of Paul di Resta or Sergio Perez might be options here but Kobayashi has more experience than the pair which helps his case.

There’s an added bonus of the marketing benefits that having Kobayashi would have. Traditionally, Japan’s always shown huge support to McLaren given their previous links with Honda. Kobayashi, however is by some margin the best driver Japan has had in recent years. As a country that seemingly loves it motorsport, Ferrari might be able to use Kobayashi as a way to help further their presence in Japan.

All things considered, I think Ferrari could do far worse than taking on Kobayashi for 2013. Doubt it will happen though, I’m expecting Felipe Massa to be around for another year…

Bentham’s Best Burrito – Where’s the best burrito place near to UCL?

Burrito!, a photo by moleitau on Flickr.

During a recent procrastination session, I was amazed at the number of places selling burritos near to UCL. Given this and in part inspired by my new favourite TV programme Man vs Food, I decided to pay each one a visit and establish once and for all, which place sold the best burrito near to UCL.

It’s worth pointing out that I’ve adopted quite strict selection criteria for my test. I’ve only selected food outlets that make burritos on site (be it eat-in or take-away) thereby ruling out any supermarket ready meals that might be available near campus. Additionally, all premises must be within a fifteen minute walk of the SPP Rubin Building where I often tend to be based. That therefore rules out places such as Chilango (in Holborn), Tortilla (in Angel), and Wahaca (in Soho). This has left me with five places to assess against each other. Results are below, with each having been visited at least once since May 2012.


El Burrito (Charlotte Place – W1T 1SF)

Pros:

El Burrito has a special place in my heart given that it was the first (and only) burrito place that I would go to when I first came to London four years ago. Standards then began to decline but I am pleased to say they have returned to their past glories. A lovely place that has really friendly staff and a certain charm not seen in some of the chain outlets. Furthermore, their food is more authentic, serving both molé and tinga – both of which are exquisite.

Cons:

On occasions the fillings haven’t necessarily been warm and with only two people serving customers, service can be a little slow at times.

Score: 8/10 – I’m very fond of El Burrito. Criticisms of it are relatively minor. It does amazing food and that’s the most important thing.


Benito’s Hat (Goodge Street – W1T 4NB)

Pros:

For a long time, this was my burrito place of choice and has recently opened up more stores in London. Service has always been unbelievably quick and efficient. You can usually get a seat here as well. Also sells these amazing Mexican soft drinks which taste like a liquid version of Haribo.
Cons:

They’ve recently changed the menu which sadly isn’t as good as their old one. I used to be huge fan of the Ben’s chicken burrito but the new menu has toned down the flavours: producing a simpler to understand menu but ultimately a less exciting meal.

Score: 6/10 – used to be something special but has now just become bog standard. Will satisfy a burrito craving but isn’t a place to shout about.


Mestizo (Euston – NW1 3EL)

Pros:

Mestizo has a very similar menu to El Burrito with whom it shares owners. Again, the quality of food is outstanding and is packed full of authentic flavours. Additionally, you can choose to have your burrito as a quesadilla or chimichanga which El Burrito doesn’t offer.

Although you can get a take away burrito, it’s worth eating in the restaurant upstairs which offers a waiter service and a great lunch time drinks deal. This makes Mestizo the perfect place to go to if you want a long relaxing lunch break that gives you plenty of time to catch up with friends.

Cons:

The burritos aren’t made in front of you, making it difficult have it tailored to your own specific tastes. Eating in the restaurant although being very enjoyable, does make it a more expensive meal.

Score: 9/10 – amazing food and a nice place to hang out. Many will cite this as their favourite and it’s not difficult to see why.


Freebird (Goodge Place – W1T 4LZ)

Pros

Street food as it’s meant to be. Ingredients appear to be fresh and of very good quality. I’m a particular fan of their salsa – I’m yet to find any better in London. There’s always a long queue by the Freebird cart yet it always seems to move relatively quickly.

Cons

Two major problems. Firstly, there’s no seating whatsoever. Not surprising given that it’s a mobile food outlet but they could really do with being allowed to put out a couple of chairs or tables at least. My burrito starts to get cold by the time I reach campus! Secondly, they don’t serve food in the evening.

Score: 7/10 – serves an above average burrito but a couple of major issues prevent me from scoring it even higher.


Chipotle (Charing Cross Road – W1T 2PR)

Pros:

The food is absolutely incredible here. May not be authentic Mexican food (if burritos can be) but certainly doesn’t lack in flavour. Portion sizes are incredibly generous and offer a wide range of filling choices. Aside from the food, there are plenty of major positive points as well. Service is very quick, staff and very helpful and friendly, and there’s tonnes of seating available.

Cons:

One of the more expensive places to grab a burrito. The price of guacamole is especially extortionate - £1.50 for a large tablespoon! Where are they sourcing their avocados from?! Also, of the places listed here, Chipotle is by some margin the furthest away from campus. It is reachable in 15 minutes but it’s a brisk walk.

Score: 9.5/10 – It’s very difficult to criticise Chipotle. It works equally well as place for a very quick bite during a night out, or as a place to have a leisurely meal while nattering away with friends. Above all, the food is epic. Only the price of guacamole prevents it from getting full marks.

Analysing the analysts – a review of the BBC’s Olympics coverage

A photo by BBC ONE on Flickr.

It’s day four since the Olympics ended and I’m still suffering from Olympics Withdrawal Syndrome. There’s a sizeable gap in my daily schedule which I’ve now decided to fill by joining others in conducting a post-mortem of the Games.

My inability to get hold of any tickets in the second week meant that I landed up catching a lot of the Olympics on the telly. In this article I look at some of the hits and misses of the BBC’s coverage.

Hits

Jake Humphrey

As some of you’ll know, I’m a big fan of his F1 coverage. However, I was unsure that he’d be able to transfer his skills over to sports so different to F1. I was hugely surprised though. He came across as well-prepared, enthusiastic and genuinely interested in all the sports he covered. He didn’t claim to be an expert at sports he was new to, being happy to play second fiddle to professionals at each event.

Matt Baker

I remember Matt Baker from his Blue Peter days but never thought he was a presenter who especially stood out. I was very surprised to see him so heavily involved in the Olympics coverage but I'm glad he was. His gymnastics coverage was especially good – providing helpful comments to newcomers to the sport like myself.

Gabby Logan

Although high profile, I still think Gabby Logan’s hugely underrated. She hasn’t been universally praised for her Olympics coverage but I thought she brought bags of enthusiasm, knowledge, and good banter.

Clare Balding

Not being a huge horse racing or rugby league fan, I’d not really seen much of her prior to the Olympics. I’ve really enjoyed watching her light-hearted coverage and her unashamed enthusiasm for all things Team GB. Apparently she’s leading the Paralympics coverage on Channel 4 which is great news and will really help their coverage.

Michael Johnson

Amazing voice and his comments as always were really informative and well-balanced.

Barry Davies

Broadcasting legend. Good to have him back on prime-time TV again. Made hockey even more entertaining than it should have been.


Misses

Trevor Nelson

Made several annoying and pointless comments during the ceremonies. At one point during the opening ceremony he commented on how it was so much better watching it in the stadium than on the TV. Thanks for making the 25 million people stuck a home (who you’re meant to be cheering up) feel so much better….

Gary Lineker

Controversial choice perhaps. Big fan of his football punditry but he seemed a little lost talking about sports he knew nothing about.

John Inverdale

I always enjoy his tennis and rugby coverage whenever I watch them. However, I thought he looked uncomfortable hosting athletics and felt he was an odd choice given that Hazel Irvine and Sue Barker are both experienced in the area.

Denise Lewis

Again, possibly a little harsh – it takes a lot to look even average when you’re working alongside Michael Johnson. Just thought many of her points were clichéd and not especially informative.

A defence of women’s football

Team GB v Cameroon, a photo by bennymcmanus on Flickr.

Over the past week, I’ve had one friend of mine rave about women’s football after seeing GB’s women during the Olympics. Others I have spoken to however, have remained somewhat dismissive of it which I still find difficult to understand. Here, I’m going to try and show that women’s football is in its own way as entertaining as the men’s game and worth giving a chance to.

I should point out that I’m no expert when it comes to women’s football. I saw several matches of Euro 2005 and the 2007 World Cup but since then, I’ve only seen bits of the odd FA Cup Final as well as the GB-Brazil Olympic game earlier this week. My knowledge is therefore limited and a little dated but hopefully sufficient enough to reach a sound judgement (of sorts at least).


Myth 1: “The women’s game isn’t any fun as it’s too slow”

It goes without saying that that the men’s game will be quicker than the women’s. However, I’m not sure it’s fair to call the women’s game slow, especially as I’m certain that the likes of Eni Oluko are much quicker than many men I know.

But even if the women’s game is ‘slow,’ is that a problem? Most football fans I know are British and are therefore used to a diet of unbelievably fast paced Premiership football. However, that doesn’t stop us from eulogising about the Spanish and Italian national teams, both of whom play at a slower pace than Premiership teams, relying more on technique, control and possession. So, if we find ‘slow’ teams like Spain entertaining, then surely the perceived lack of pace in the women’s game shouldn’t be a problem? And women players have technique aplenty (see below)…


Myth 2: “Women footballers aren’t very skilful”

Once you see a handful of games you'll quickly see this is far from true. The standard of technical skill and positional play in the women’s football is equal to that of the men’s. In certain areas, I’d say the England women are better than their male counterparts. Since Gazza, England have lacked a world-class, technically skilled footballer with the ability to beat a defender (with the possible exception of Wayne Rooney). England women on the other hand have had Kelly Smith doing just this for the past 17 years. Some of friends are bored of me saying this but I maintain that she’s by some margin one of the best footballers this country has produced over the past couple of decades.

Also, until her recent retirement Faye White had always shown herself to be defender equal in ability to any of her male counterparts. Plus she’s set a better example of being England captain than John Terry has been.


Myth 3: “There’s no point in watching women’s football as it’s an inferior form of the game”

I’ve already argued that the women’s game is not inferior to the men’s game, simply different. However, if for argument’s sake we do say that women’s football isn’t as good as the men’s, that’s still no reason for football fans to neglect the women’s game.

Let’s face it, the quality of men’s matches is very patchy. Bar the odd World Cup or Champions League game, you can’t say that most football games are actually enjoyable to watch. Many fans though will still continue to watch football throughout the year, either out of habit or because they like the wider social side of it. Why else do you get people holding season tickets for non-league teams? In my case, why do I continue to watch so many Blackburn games given their terrible brand of football? Football fans regularly put up with lower-tier football, finding other qualities in it that can be enjoyed. Therefore, how can we claim that the women’s game can’t be entertaining when we give non-league football a chance?

I can’t claim to be an avid follower of women’s football but I won’t dismiss the possibility of watching it again in the future. All I know is that the women’s game can genuinely be enjoyable to watch and hopefully I’ve shown that there are plenty of reasons for its critics to take a more open-minded approach to the game.

Is the Coalition simply enforcing the Labour 2010 election manifesto?

Labour Party manifesto: A future fair for all, a photo by apvg on Flickr.

While working on my dissertation I’ve spent some time reading the party manifestos from the 2010 election. It really is as thrilling as it sounds… One thing however, did catch my interest – the uncanny resemblances between Labour manifesto pledges and actual economic policy introduced by the Coalition since coming to office.

Below, I’ve put in bold some of the notable manifesto pledges from Labour in 2010 together with the Coalition’s policy response in the same area. As you’ll see, there are some remarkable similarities:


Cuts to lower priority spending

In 2010, Labour claimed that tough choices had to be made with regards to public spending. Money was only pledged in areas deemed to be of high priority. The Coalition instead has said they are only prepared to fund projects if they offer high added value. Isn’t this what Labour were saying albeit using slightly different language? Surely high priority projects in reality are those with the highest added value?


Rebuilding the banking system

The Labour manifesto refers to making deals with banks to increase lending, changing boardroom culture, curbing executive pay, and breaking up banks. We’ve seen the Coalition advocate each of these with ‘Project Merlin’ to increase lending, Osborne and Cameron’s recent stance on the Barclays Libor fixing shenanigans, and Vince Cable’s push for wholesale reforms of the state-owned banks.

Investment in infrastructure

The two main infrastructure projects that Labour are looking to push in their manifesto are the roll-out of high speed broadband across the UK, and an upgrade of the national transport network, especially with the HS2 rail network. The past couple of Budget statements from George Osborne have clearly stated the Coalition’s desire to push through infrastructure upgrades in both these areas too.

Capping of public sector pay

Unions have been heavily critical of the lack of public sector pay increases together with pension reforms brought in by the Coalition. However, the Labour manifesto itself calls for “action to control public-sector pay including a one per cent cap on basic pay uplifts for 2011-12 and 2012-13” and for “tough decisions on public sector pensions to cap the taxpayers’ liability.”


Deficit reduction

This is probably the big difference that everybody likes to talk about. In reality though, Labour manifesto pledges and current Coalition policies are not that far apart from one another. Although clearly stating that they would not “put the recovery at risk by reckless cuts to public spending this year” Labour nevertheless pledges to “halve the fiscal deficit over four years.” They even state “Once the recovery is secure, we will rapidly reduce the budget deficit.” To me, this says that Labour spending cuts would have started only a year or so after the Coalition began theirs, would have only been marginally shallower, and would have taken only slightly longer than under the Coalition’s current plans.

The similarities in attitudes don’t just end here either. Labour promises to cut red-tape and regulation, and to support SMEs are cornerstones of current Coalition economic policy. Furthermore, Labour’s proposed “Finance for Growth Fund” sounds remarkably similar to the Coalition’s current Regional Growth Fund. And there are plenty of other uncanny resemblances that I can also pull out.

I have my own theory on this. In terms of economic policy, the ideological differences between New Labour (even under Brown & Darling) and Cameron & Osborne’s brand of Conservatism were always limited. Both put forward centrist and minimally interventionist policies although inevitably both camps adopted different rhetoric. The introduction of the Lib Dems into government has forced the Conservatives to blunt their approach somewhat and adopt the more conciliatory rhetoric and policy that you’d naturally expect from New Labour.

The main thing to take away from this article however, is that the Coalition since coming to office has basically followed the same economic approach that Labour was willing to back in 2010…

What might the England football squad look like in 2014?

Theo Walcott & Jack Wilshere, a photo by Rial14 on Flickr.

With Euro 2012 having finished a week ago and the Olympic football tournament yet to start, I’m in an unusual position of not having any meaningful upcoming football to talk about. I’ve taken the opportunity instead to reflect on where English football might be in the future. In particular, I’ve starting thinking about what the England team may look like come the 2014 World Cup (assuming they qualify…) Rather than trying to predict a starting XI, in this article I look at the players I think will be pushing for squad places in Brazil.


Goalkeepers

Based on what we saw in Euro 2012, barring injury or major loss of form, Joe Hart will certainly be England number 1 for many years to come. Support could well come from Jack Butland who has attracted some Premiership interest and is in the 2012 Olympic squad.


Right backs

After some assured performances in Euro 2012, Glen Johnson is the man in possession and it will take some effort to dislodge him. Kyle Walker is certainly an exciting prospect but may need to become a better defender. Don’t discount Micah Richards either who is likely to remain a Manchester City regular.

Centre backs

We’re likely to see a changing of the guard with John Terry and Rio Ferdinand both leaving the England fold. Chris Smalling and Phil Jones have shown great promise and could be in line to become first choice centre backs for Manchester United in the near future. Nevertheless, as an England partnership, 2014 may come too soon for them both so expect experienced figures like Gary Cahill and Joleon Lescott to be England regulars for the next of couple of seasons.

Left backs

Roy Hodgson will want to keep some experienced figures in his starting XI at Brazil so expect Ashley Cole who’ll be 33 come the World Cup, to remain firmly in the frame. Leighton Baines is currently the shoo-in understudy for Cole but will expect some stiff competition from Kieran Gibbs and Ryan Bertrand who are likely to be Cole’s long-term successors.

Central midfield

Lots of promise for England in this area. Jack Wilshere is already well-established and will be certainly be one of England’s most important and influential players come the next World Cup. Jack Rodwell is in prime position to take over the defensive midfield position from Scott Parker / Gareth Barry. Add Josh McEachran and Tom Cleverley to the mix as well and there’ll be plenty of young talent to draw on in 2014. James Milner will offer experience and a move away from Man City could enable him to establish himself in his preferred position in the centre of the park. Steven Gerrard, who will be 34 come Brazil 2014, might also one final tournament in him.


Attacking midfielders and wingers

England’s current squad players in this area are still young so I’d expect the likes of Theo Walcott, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, and Ashley Young to be firmly in the mix for the World Cup. A move away from Man City again may help Adam Johnson. His rare trait of being a left-footer who can dribble past people will be useful to England. Expect other young up-and-coming talent to also stake a claim.

Strikers

This is an area that particularly concerns me as I’m not aware of any new talent coming through. Wayne Rooney of course is a no-brainer. He’ll be 28 by the time of the next World Cup and therefore hopefully in the prime of his career. Having seen off both Michael Owen and Dimitar Berbatov at Man United, expect Danny Wellbeck to become a United and England regular. Andy Carroll is your stereotypical England number 9 so he’ll also be in the running. And again, expect a new young charge to gain prominence ahead of the World Cup.


I’m sure those with more extensive football knowledge than myself will throw some additional names into the mix too. All in all, I expect the next World Cup squad to be considerably different to the one seen in Euro 2012. Whether any of these predictions actually come true or not is a different matter. That’s something for me to write about in 2014!

Why building affordable homes won’t really help young people find property.

London Housing, a photo by Roomic Cube on Flickr.

A BBC article earlier this week cited a Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) report which claimed that a million young people would be “locked out” of home ownership by 2020. It pointed not only to the high house prices faced by first-time buyers, but also to the ever-increasing costs of renting faced by young working professionals.

The article suggests that a way around these problems is to instigate a programme for building affordable homes and to produce a better working rental system. Here however, I argue that such initiatives will merely paper over the cracks that we are likely to see in the housing market. Instead, the root problem needs to be addressed: the UK’s hugely imbalanced economy.

Many articles about young people and housing markets tend to be focussed on issues in London. The BBC article I’ve cited is no different. The problem that we’re seeing in London is that the demand for housing is far greater than the supply, especially amongst young professionals. This problem will continue to persist long into the future, and in all probability will get worse still.

The fact is that graduates and young people continue to gravitate towards London. After all, this is the city that is a major centre for the financial and professional services, government and public sector work, and the creative industries. With London offering unparalleled career opportunities compared to other parts of the UK, young people will continue to flock to London in their droves. As more people continue to move to London, more pressure will be put on the housing stock and prices will increase further still.

Building affordable homes will only provide a short-term fix. If they’re built in London then they’ll be snapped up quickly anyway and we’ll be back at square one again. If they’re built outside London, then there’s a danger you’ll be building unnecessary houses in places where there’s no demand for them.

Ultimately, what’s needed is a more profound transformation of the economy so that it’s less focussed and reliant on London and the South East. We need to build up other cities and areas so that they become viable alternatives to London for young career-minded individuals. That way we have a chance of relieving the long run pressure on houses (and in turn house prices) in London as well as creating other potentially cheaper areas that people can move to.

Adding to this, London’s a city that can’t really geographically expand any further, ultimately meaning there’s less physical space to build new affordable houses. By regenerating and economically stimulating areas beyond London, we can develop regions where there may actually be space to build new accommodation. Again, as the supply increases there’s less competition for housing helping keep prices in check.

Building affordable houses is in itself not a solution to the problem of getting young people onto the property ladder. A house building programme will only be beneficial if it’s part of a broader policy that creates jobs outside London and means that young professionals are less dependent on our capital city.

Disney films are really traumatic, so why do we love them so much?

Scar, a photo by B Dussinger on Flickr.

As a young kid, my cinema experiences were dominated by Disney films and I know that many people my age will be in the same boat as me. Furthermore, with the success of films like Toy Story and Cars, it seems that a new generation is falling in love with Disney as well. However, there’s something I find very troubling. Why is it that we are so fond of Disney, even though most of their films are full of deeply emotionally disturbing and distressing scenes?

Thinking about it actually, whenever someone mentions a Disney film, for me at least it’s the scary scenes that first come to mind. To me, Dumbo is not about a happy-go-lucky young elephant (who may or may not have been on acid…) but is about a poor little creature that gets picked on. The defining moment of Pinocchio is not when he becomes a real boy but when he gets swallowed by that massive whale. Even with something more recent like Finding Nemo, my abiding memory is of a depressed Nemo being stuck in a dirty fish tank and not just generally larking about turtles in the ocean.

Indeed, I can’t think of a single Disney film that doesn’t have the potential to emotionally scar the sensitive and vulnerable – qualities that most young children will have…

I like to think that the reason I’m so fond of trashy action thrillers like The Expendables, Die Hard, and Under Siege is because of Disney. After all, once you’ve grown up as a child seeing a cute fox chained up in prison in Robin Hood, or the evil Queen trying to murder a harmless Snow White, frankly most things in the cinema won’t distress you any longer.

As a rationale human being, there’s no way that I should look so fondly on a company that was responsible for giving me so many nightmares as I kid. Yet I do and will definitely want any kids I have in the future to grow up watching Disney as well. Am I mad…?!

Why a lowering of the voting age is more important than it ever has been

Guatemala Elections - Youth voting, a photo by El Canche on Flickr.

With the 2011 referendum on the Alternative Vote voting system and the appearance of House of Lords reform in last week’s Queen’s Speech, the Lib Dems have been pushing hard for electoral and constitutional reform. In this article however, I argue that they have neglected a more pressing area of reform: lowering the voting age.

There are several factors at play here. First of all there’s the obvious argument about ending the disparities in UK law. There are any numbers of examples that I could cite here. At 16, you’re able to join the army as a soldier yet have no say over the way that foreign policy is managed. Likewise at the same age you can leave school and work full-time yet have no say on government economic policy.

Another argument levelled by opponents of a lower voting age is that under 18s generally have inadequate political or policy knowledge to use their vote responsibly. This argument doesn’t wash with me. I’d argue that there’s already sizeable voter apathy amongst the adult population, with little knowledge or awareness of the policy platforms of the major parties. But there are under 18’s with this knowledge, not least because there are GCSE and A Level students of Politics and Economics. Admittedly, only a small proportion of 16-18 year olds may fall into this category but even if this is the case, surely it can’t be right to exclude these individuals from the election process?

However, these arguments aren’t new and have long been advocated by many a commentator. The main issue for me is that lowering the voting age is a far more pertinent issue now than it has been previously. The UK is going through a period of profound social and economic change. There is a range of wide-sweeping legislation being advocated by parties across the board and many of these would have a long-lasting impact on those that currently are too young to vote.

Take for instance the rise in tuition fees and the scrapping of EMA. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it are, those that will be most affected by the changes have no say in the matter. Likewise, we’re seeing on-going debates over how large public sector pensions should be or whether the current government austerity programme should be reversed. Again, whatever your view on this is, ultimately any failure to tackle the deficit now will mean shifting the debt burden to current non-voters. There may be no way around this but surely it’s irresponsible not to ask younger citizens whether they are willing to take on this burden?

Finally, lowering the voting age would indicate some kind of commitment to the youth today. Many social commentators following the Summer 2011 riots spoke about how many young people felt society was ignoring them. I don’t for one moment claim that giving 13 or 14 year olds the vote would have prevented the riots. However, such a gesture would show that the rest of society does have at least some concern for them. Furthermore, politicians might even pay more attention to the needs of young people in order to secure their vote.

Much of the political and policy debates we hear about today concern the short term. This is important but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that actions taken over the coming months could have profound implications for current non-voters in the long term. More than ever therefore, we need to lower the voting age and give younger people the chance to have a voice and have their say.

Goodbye Ceefax!

Ceefax Weather, a photo by Dan Farrimond on Flickr.

Four days ago, London turned off its analogue TV signal as part of the digital switchover. This also spelt the end for Ceefax, the television-based text service hailed by some as the precursor to the Internet. Although we still have a number of similar features available through the BBC’s red button service, it’s just not the same. It’s clean, crisp, has fancy colours and doesn’t freeze on you. It’s just not the slow and retro service of old!

A number of people have posted articles recently reminiscing about Ceefax. At a risk of coming across as being even geekier and nostalgic than normal, here are some fond Ceefax memories of my own:

Backchat

I guess this was a primitive version of Twitter. Basically, you had a bunch of teenagers who in less characters than a text message, could comment on whatever topic they wanted to. Was very informative (and bizarre at times) and also made me aware of various upcoming bands. So those who mock my tastes in music should blame Ceefax!

Bamboozle

Although this was introduced by Ceefax’s rival, Teletext, this still deserves a mention. A crude and clunky quiz page, Bamboozle was strangely addictive and in the days before Wikipedia, the ultimate source for pointless facts and useless trivia.

The weather map (see picture above)

This was truly inspired. The gaudy colour scheme, the enormous pixels, and the fact it left out the part of the South coast where I lived. Yet we were still massively reliant on Ceefax weather in my household. Given the reliability of the BBC Weather website at times, we might still be better off with this Ceefax version…


News and sport headlines

Anyone who knows me remotely well will know how obsessed I am with the BBC Sport website and my Sky Sports News mobile app. However, back in the day I relied on Ceefax to keep me posted on the latest news. I can easily remember the numbers of the main pages I used to go. 302 for football, 340 for cricket, and 360 for motorsport (as yes I know it's worrying that I still remember this)

Invision sports updates

Genius feature that posted the latest sports scores in the corner of the screen while you were watching normal telly. Helped resolve several arguments at home when I’d want to follow the cricket but when someone else in the house wanted to watch the news, Noel’s House Party or Keeping up Appearances…

Anyway, time for me to stop reminiscing. I fear that I have a lot to do to get my street cred back…

Labour, just give us a shadow budget.

Ed Miliband, Labour Party Leader Portrait, a photo by Dave Wood Liverpool Images on Flickr.

The news has recently been dominated by tit-for-tat politics, particularly over how to manage the economy. Much of the battle between Cameron and Miliband has been about who can deliver the better sound bite or one-liner, and who can provide the emptier piece of rhetoric.

The fact is that there’s very little that differentiates Labour and the Conservatives right now. Both are dominated by people from similar socio-economic and academic backgrounds, and are both chasing the same narrow band of middle class voters. Yet Labour still insist they are fundamentally different to the Conservatives without offering hard policy to show this. But there’s one simple action that Labour could take if they really want to show how different they are: produce a shadow budget.

Many of my Labour supporting friends will still maintain that Labour offers something tangibly different to the Conservatives. Speaking as someone with no real party allegiance I find this very difficult to agree with. Yes, we hear about a Labour push for shallower cuts and the increased taxation of higher earners. Nevertheless, they’ve failed to show that if elected tomorrow, they would reverse any of the fundamental elements of the Coalition’s economic policy. The following quote from Mary Ann Sieghart in the i last week provides a good summary:

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say, “We understand your pain but there’s no alternative, and it’s going to have to get worse.” Labour says, “We understand your pain but we can only fiddle about at the edges to help you.”


That said, one move could change the whole situation – Labour giving us a shadow budget. If Labour really believes that the Coalition’s approach is wrong and that alternative tactics are better, then then why not produce something concrete (and evidence based) saying so? Labour surely has lots to gain from publishing a shadow budget? If they do it properly, they can show themselves as being economically competent, in touch with the opinions of the public, and offering a fundamentally different approach to the Coalition.

Annoyingly though, everyone knows that Labour won’t be producing a shadow budget anytime soon. There are only two reasons for this that I can think of. Firstly, Labour are playing it far too safe and are not willing to take the risk and leave themselves open to scrutiny.

More worryingly though, I think there’s a second factor at play. Labour can’t offer anything tangibly different to the Coalition and the party knows this. Because of this, they’ll make politics a competition about empty rhetoric and personality, not about policy or ideology. Then again, hasn’t politics always been like this?

Five forgotten footballing musical hits from yesteryear

Most football songs, with the exception of World in Motion, Three Lions and possibly Vindaloo, tend to be flash in the pan hits which people forget about within a couple of weeks of their release.  In no particular order, here I re-introduce Extending the Lunch Break readers to five forgotten footballing musical hits (of varying quality) from yesteryear.

1) Come on You Reds – Manchester United and Status Quo (1994)

Oddly, this is one of my earliest musical memories. I remember having really mixed feelings about this song when it first came out. I was hugely anti-Man United at the time but thought this was an amazing tune (note I was aged 7 when this was released). Would Status Quo count as an acceptable guilty pleasure?



2) Du the Dudek - The Trophy Boyz (2005)

This was written in honour of Jerzy Dudek’s performance in the 2005 Champions League Final. The song has a strange Timmy Mallett feel to it yet reached No. 37 in the UK charts. It also spurned a dance craze across UK clubs that lasted about two days.



3) Sven Sven Sven  - Bell & Spurling (2001)

Only twice in my life have I ever thought that England were true world-beaters. The first was when we beat Holland 4-1 during Euro 96. The second was when we beat Germany 5-1 in 2001 which this Bell & Spurling track commemorates. Some good one liners here, as well as some very dubious ones. “Oliver Kahn. Ein, zwei, drei, vier, fünf that’s five in Ger-man...” Indeed.



4) World at Your Feet - Embrace (2006)

I’m a big fan of this track and think it is really under-rated. Not only is it a good football track but I think it’s a good credible song regardless. That said, many have criticised my musical tastes in the past...



5) Pass and Move (It's the Liverpool Groove) - Liverpool FC & The Boot Room Boys (1996)

Nearly as criminal as the cream suits they wore at Wembley that year (see photo above), this dreadful song was released to coincide with Liverpool’s appearance at the 1996 FA Cup Final. That said, John Barnes is typically amazing on this track and just about saves the whole thing.




If anyone has any other forgotten football songs that they’d like to remind me of then I’d love to hear from you!

Are charity appeals for developing countries missing the point?

78.365_road_construction, a photo by ToddMorris on Flickr.

A report from the Charities Aid Foundation in 2011 found that many of the larger charities had been particularly badly hit by this recession. It is hardly surprising then that we see so many hard-hitting charity appeals in order to raise money for projects in the developing world. As a result, we’re donating money to charities thinking that we’re buying food, medicines and clothes for individuals in desperate situations. But I feel these appeals are missing the point. Clearly addressing these issues are important but if we really want to make a real and long-lasting difference in the developing world, we need to be raising money for two other things which are considerably less glamorous: fridges and roads.

It’s worth pointing out that this isn’t a new idea at all. Indeed, I first came across the idea that charities should pay more attention to road construction in an episode of The West Wing.

Giving money to help buy food, provide vaccinations, or indeed to build schools and hospitals merely scratches at the surface of what needs doing. There’s little point in sending food aid to a country if it merely sits in a remote central depot and a) goes off very quickly or b) there’s no way of ensuring that the general population can gain access to it. For that reason it’s even more important for efforts to be concentrated on improving roads and refrigeration units. Likewise, little good will be achieved by sending in money to build schools and hospitals if the road system is so poor that hardly anyone can access the new facilities.

However, from what I’ve seen (which admittedly might not be representative of what’s out there), you see very few prominent charity appeals asking us to donate money for infrastructure building projects. Instead, they focus on more ‘glamorous’ things such as providing farm animals, building houses, and buying clothes to name but a few.

Clearly there’s a role for campaigns relating to these issues but is it right that charity appeals focus nearly exclusively on them? Are the most pressing issues being neglected? Fortunately, according to a close friend of mine who helps write appeals for one of the major international charities, some organsiations have a more nuanced approach. For this charity at least, money goes according to where those on the ground believe it's needed, and not necessarily on the things that the general public hear about in appeals and might base their donations on.

Charities inevitably campaign on what they know will grab our attention (it’s not unreasonable for them to do so). If we were really interested in roads and fridges then charities would surely play on this. But why are we so averse to coughing up for such things? Perhaps it’s to do with the fact that we know that the money would land up going to multinationals who would be most likely to win road construction projects. Even though it might be the most beneficial way of helping a poorly developed country, perhaps we’re still unwilling to fund such a move simply because we don’t want to further line the pockets of big firms.

More generally perhaps, maybe it says much about us as members of society. With the odd praiseworthy exception, we only give to charities only to make ourselves feel better, not because helping others most effectively is our primary concern. But then again, does that matter…?

We're in a recession, so why the lack of politicised music?

Roger Waters - The Wall Concert _D7C29460, a photo by youngrobv (Rob&Ale) on Flickr.

I’ve had a lot of uni work over the past couple of weeks and as a result, I’ve
been heavily reliant on Pink Floyd to help me concentrate. One of the things that’s really struck me is how politically outspoken their music is compared to what’s around right now. I find this particularly puzzling given that we’re in the midst of one of the longest and deepest recessions for several generations.

Traditionally, recessions coincide with a rise in politicised mainstream music. Some artists use their music to overtly express their political views. Others become social commentators, using music to moan about the state of society. Some examples below show this well-established link.

Mid-1970s: Here you not only had bands like Pink Floyd bemoaning the socio-economic state of the country, but you also had the rise of anti-establishment punk rock with the likes of the Sex Pistols and The Clash.

Early 1980s: Bands emerged in the early Thatcher years who were critical of the state of society. You think of The Smiths, The Jam, and UB40 for example.

Early 1990s: Much of the work by the Manic Street Preachers strongly advocate leftist ideas, Oasis’ Definitely Maybe talks of the troubles facing young adults at the time, plus Public Enemy became popular this side of the pond.

Clearly then, recessions tend to help produce popular politicised music. The current recession though seems to be the exception. The biggest British musicians of recent times have been the likes of Coldplay, Adele, Amy Winehouse, and Take That. All have seen commercial and critical success yet they’ve tended to write more about personal turmoil and love rather than commenting on society more generally.

I’m not saying the lack of politicised music is inherently bad. Certainly it hasn’t stopped me enjoying recently released music. It’s just interesting that this recession hasn’t seen much political music. I was discussing this with a friend the other day, and she suggested that Rupert Murdoch and Simon Cowell might be to blame for this. I’m not entirely convinced that Murdoch is relevant here but there’s definitely some mileage with the Cowell argument. With X Factor, people of all backgrounds may now simply see music as a way of quickly becoming famous and not some form of artistic expression. X Factor’s also flooded the music industry with artists producing safe and chart-happy songs that sell by the bucket load. As a result, there’s less space for more left-field music that may be more controversial.

Given how bad this recession has been, I’m surprised that there’s hardly any prominent politicised music around right now. I don’t see this changing anytime soon, unless Little Mix’s forthcoming album decides to break all the normal X Factor rules...

Surely Hope Powell's worth considering for the vacant England job?

England v Scotland _ Hope Powell, a photo by sazztastical on Flickr.

It’s that time again. England are looking for a new manager so cue the usual hysteria about who should be leading the national team. Collectively, it seems like we want an experienced, respected, English coach who is known to motivate players and has a proven track record for success. As ever, at first glance there doesn’t appear to be anyone who meets all these criteria (the only piece of silverware that Harry Redknapp has won is one FA Cup). However, the one manager who most closely fits the bill has barely been mentioned – Hope Powell!

I’m aware that some of you won’t know who I’m talking about here. Hope Powell has been the manager of the England Women’s team since 1998 and will also be coaching Team GB’s Women’s Football Team at London 2012. You might now think that I’m just joking around when I suggest that Powell should also be considered for the vacant post. Initially this might have been the case but given her experience and track record, I’m convinced that she has an equal right to be talked about in relation to the job as managers like Redknapp, Hiddink, Pearce and Mourinho. Here are a few reasons why:

Englishness: Absurdly, the media and football following public have decided that the next England manager has to be English. Redknapp’s passion for England has won him many supporters but Hope Powell’s record is equally noteworthy. Capped 66 times by England (with 35 goals), vice-captain for country, and England manager for nearly 15 years. Surely this underlines her commitment to her country?

Reputation and respect: Again, the football world wants a figure in charge that is widely respected within the game and therefore can command the authority of players and staff. Hope Powell’s credentials speak for themselves. OBE, CBE, inducted into the English Football Hall of Fame, and the first woman to be awarded the UEFA Pro Licence (which is more than many other English managers hold). Clearly this is manager that is hugely respected within the wider footballing community.

Pre-existing FA relationship: Stuart Pearce has been linked with the job primarily as he’s already in the FA coaching set up and would therefore be a steady appointment from within. But, note that Hope Powell’s been in the FA set up for far longer…

International experience: Advocates of Guus Hiddink and Roy Hodgson point to their prior experience of managing international football. Yet Powell also has this in abundance. She’s led England to the quarter-finals of the 2005 Euros and the 2007 World Cup, and the final of the 2009 Euros.

Coaching achievements: Although Powell’s achievements above are clearly notable, some will say that she should not be considered as she’s not won any silverware. But neither has Guus Hiddink at international level. Plus Harry Redknapp’s only silverware is one FA Cup so Hope Powell’s records hardly fares too badly in comparison.

Bringing through youth: Again, Harry Redknapp’s fans will point to the number of young players that he developed at both West Ham and Spurs, a vital quality for an England manager. However, it’s also worth noting that alongside her senior level duties, Hope Powell oversees the England Women’s set up from Under 15s to Under 21s, showing that she’s equally able to bring through the next generation of England players.

Now I appreciate that there’s no chance that Hope Powell will be talked about in relation to the vacant England post. Nonetheless, this article has revealed two things. Firstly, the England job goes to whoever’s fashionable at the time, not to the person who’s necessarily most qualified. Otherwise, why isn’t Hope Powell being considered in the same way as Harry Redknapp?

Secondly, how is it that such an experienced and decorated manager has not been remotely touted with the major manager roles in English football? In 2011, Chelsea appointed an inexperienced AVB with minimal track record as manager yet Hope Powell, a very successful and widely respected manager did not even get a look in. Makes you wonder what more she will have to achieve before the big names come calling.

Why the FA's decision on John Terry is nonsensical

England training at the Qlympic Stadium in Bardcelona, a photo by supernaturalfan90 on Flickr.

So, John Terry was back in the news again this weekend, this time being stripped of the England captaincy ahead of his trial for allegedly racially abusing QPR defender Anton Ferdinand. Reading between the lines of their statement on this, the FA are simultaneously trying to show that they take accusations of racism seriously, but that they also respect the legal conventions of a defendant being innocent until proven guilty. I argue that rather than coming across as being strong and proactive, the FA instead made a decision that makes it look weak and indecisive.

Before I progress any further it’s worth pointing out that I have no real allegiance to John Terry here. Certainly I’m not a Chelsea fan looking to stand in his corner. On the other hand though, I don’t think Terry’s good enough to get into the England XI and therefore for footballing reasons, I wouldn’t have him as England captain. All that interests me is seeing an appropriate decision being made in relation to John Terry’s immediate future with England- something which this latest move hasn’t done.

There were only two decisions that the FA could make. The first would be to work on the assumption that Terry is innocent until proven guilty. On that basis, no action should be taken against John Terry until after his trial, and the FA should continue to fully back their man. By stripping Terry of the captaincy but still keeping him in the squad, they’re creating the impression that they think Terry is guilty but are afraid to publicly admit so. This is hardly the way to deal with someone who’s meant to be treated as if he’s done nothing wrong - especially when you consider that Liverpool were unwavering in their support for Luis Suarez up until his racism-related FA hearing.

The only other approach that the FA could have taken would have been to drop Terry immediately from the England squad until after his trial. The FA rightly has to be seen to take a zero-tolerance stance towards racist incidences. But, in only taking away some of Terry’s privileges as an England player, the FA are making themselves out to be doing this half-heartedly. It is also worth noting the divisiveness that Terry’s presence might have within a racially mixed England squad, one of whose most senior members is the brother of Anton Ferdinand. Instead, all this FA decision does is suggest a malleable approach to their supposed zero-tolerance stance towards racism which in turn may destabilize the entire team.

In this instance, the FA had to make a clear decision but instead have made a move that on the one hand, shows an unwillingness to support their player, and on the other, suggests that they are uncertain on their zero-tolerance policy towards racism. For what it’s worth, I personally would have kept Terry as captain (as much as I wouldn’t want to). The FA has a duty to uphold legal conventions which in this case means treating Terry for now, as if he’s done nothing wrong. That said, I would have fully understood the FA if they had decided to drop Terry entirely given the severity of the accusations levelled against him. After all, a precedent had already been set with Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate not being considered for selection prior to their 2002 trial for assaulting an Asian student.

It was a tough decision for the FA but that’s what was needed – a real decision – not this half-baked thing that they’ve come up with. Either back your man fully, or don’t do so at all.

Raising the university entry age to 20: reform that may make a difference

Students Studying, a photo by University of Denver on Flickr.

This article, on a more serious topic than my first, looks at higher education reform and why I feel that current proposed policies (from both left and right leaning commentators) fundamentally ignore the key issues the sector faces.

Plenty has been written over recent months and years over how the UK Higher Education (HE) sector needs to change in order to meet the changing demands being placed on it. Three problems in particular need addressing. Firstly, we need to find a way of upskilling the population in a way that can meet the ever-evolving demands of our economy. Secondly, we need to find a way to address the inequality of HE opportunity that exists between the state and private education sectors. And thirdly, all this has to be done at a time when the government needs to cut costs in order to tackle the deficit.

So far, only two real solutions have been offered, both of which I feel are highly unimaginative. The coalition has raised tuition fees (albeit with more favourable loan repayment terms) which provides a quick fix to the financial problem, but does little to address the other two issues. Student bodies and unions have proposed a continuation of the lower fee levels with some even advocating increased HE funding. This allows continued upskilling but doesn’t really tackle issues of inequality of opportunity, and simply leaves the financial issues for someone else to deal with at a later date.

I argue that neither of these options is appropriate and that the country is better off adopting a third but more radical solution: raising the standard entry age for undergraduate degrees to 20.

I’ll start by looking at the resource and financial constraints currently faced by the HE sector. In the long-run, my proposal would make relatively little difference as student numbers wouldn’t change, cohorts would simply start degrees later. However, important short-term cost savings could be realised by universities. In switching to my proposed system, there inevitably would be an initial decline in student numbers as the first cohorts delay the start of their degrees. This however, would also entail reduced expenditure for the HE sector, which would provide some respite to the huge spending squeeze that the sector is currently seeing.

The main benefits of my proposal though lie elsewhere. Let me examine the upskilling of the population to begin with. The university path is not the only way of improving individuals' work skills and indeed, may not even be the most appropriate step straight after school/college. By raising the standard university entry age to 20, people will have two full years which they can spend in the working world. Any job, regardless of status or sector, will provide future students with a vital perspective on how the wider world works, leaving them well-placed not only for university (especially so for prospective arts students) but also for their longer term careers. Furthermore, with two years to play with, it’s not unreasonable to think that firms might set up school leaver programmes, similar to graduate training schemes, again helping broaden the skillset of future undergraduates.

I’ll end by considering equality of opportunity. Clearly one policy alone will not address this issue but raising the university entry age would certainly help. Firstly, it would mean that most candidates would apply for places with grades in hand, giving them a better idea of which courses and institutions would be realistic and appropriate choices. Clearly this is preferable to what we have right now: guess work based on sketchy predicted grades. Furthermore, the extra two years allows more time to research possible future paths, as well as providing an opportunity to reflect and to try out new things away from the academic environment. My proposal could also help tackle some of the financial barriers to HE participation. By making it normal to work for two years before university, students will have to chance to earn at least some money that can immediately contribute towards their HE costs.

I appreciate that my proposed changes would represent a huge shift in the status quo and I don’t claim that this solution is flawless. Nonetheless, I believe that policy needs to big, brave, and bold as it’s the only way that our higher education sector will continue to be meaningful and well-regarded.

Being a Danish footballer: the ultimate dream job?

Brian_Laudrup_125279o, a photo by golpasion on Flickr.

Despite having spent the past four years either studying or working in policy, I’ve always maintained that the ultimate dream job would involve being some kind of part-time astronaut, part-time cricketer. However, after reading an excellent article by Dave Farrar in Issue One of the football publication The Blizzard, I realise that I now have a new calling: to be an international footballer, specifically a Danish one.

Farrar tells the story behind the Denmark team that won Euro 92. The Danes were only told ten days before the start of the tournament that they would be playing, replacing the excluded Yugoslavia. Folklore has it that several of the Danish players were on holiday, soaking up the sun on various beaches when they received their call up. Surely the best summer holiday ever then: the sun, the sea, and a winner’s medal from a major international football tournament!

But the story gets better. The Danish coach Moller Nielsen provided his squad with a series of unorthodox pre-match motivation activities. Squad activities included a trip to play mini-golf, and a matchday meal at Burger King. For me, the only thing that would detract from life as a professional sportsman would be the endless coach trips and a diet consisting solely of chicken and pasta. Clearly if I were a Danish footballer though, even these concerns would be taken care of…

This somewhat unique regime took Denmark to the final, but Nielsen still had one final trick up his sleeve. Rather than encouraging his players to get some rest and a good night’s sleep the night before the final, Nielsen let his players spend the night with their wives and girlfriends instead!

Being paid to play international football has to count as one of the best jobs you could have, especially if silverware comes your way (although as an Englishman I wouldn’t know what such success actually feels like...). But doing so when training consists of staying on the beach and eating Burger King has to make it the ultimate dream job. Clearly, I’d be well suited to the Danish way of footballing life!

I’ll end this entry with a couple of final thoughts. Firstly, based on all that’s been said, how can we be surprised that Denmark is regularly rated as one of the happiest places in the world? Secondly, my cricket club, the St Anne's Allstars, has long advocated the Danish model. Previous pre-match activities have included having a Sunday roast immediately before play, and holding various running bomb competitions in swimming pools (complete with Biggles goggles routines…) Why then, do we lose so many matches?!

A bit about what I'm doing here!

Welcome to my new blog, which I hope to update at least on a semi-regular basis!

The main aim of my blog is to further explore some of the topics of conversation (both serious and non-serious) that I’ve had with various people in the pub or over lunch. I’ve often found that chucking out time or the end of the lunch break has prematurely ended many an interesting conversation. There are plenty of debates that I’ve annoyingly had to leave unfinished. Past examples include whether there’s any value in legalising narcotics, which of the Indiana Jones films is the best, and whether it can ever be acceptable to eat chips and gravy after a night out… So expect articles from me on a range of themes including current affairs, politics, sport, and the latest bit of trashy TV I happen to be watching.

I hope you find my articles interesting and I will happily welcome comments to my pieces. For friends and family that decide to read my posts, hopefully they may even provide starting points for future lunchtime conversation and pub-based banter!

More soon!