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...
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Surely Hope Powell's worth considering for the vacant England job?
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.
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.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Why the FA's decision on John Terry is nonsensical
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.
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.
Thursday, 26 January 2012
Raising the university entry age to 20: reform that may make a difference
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.
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.
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Being a Danish footballer: the ultimate dream job?
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?!
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?!
Monday, 9 January 2012
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)