cabbages and kings

This is how it must feel for Gibraltar's young new athletics hope, having saved up his own money for the trip to Beijing, only to finish last in the only qualifying heat in which he was to take part. It would take self flagellation on a Catholic scale not to feel some sense of achievement.

So, anyhoo, knowing that self-praise is no praise at all, I am happy to report nonetheless that people at work are giving me that kind of congratulations-mixed-with-bemusement on news that, somehow, I have stretched £13.48 across the four weeks of November. By a muddling together of colleagues' generous donations, late night perusal of reduced-to-clear shelves, and walking the 5 miles to work (and back), in addition to a 40-day "dry spell" without any booze, the money has made it all the way to pay day week with 45p to my name.

As I made clear in the other posts on my temporary financial flux (see below), throughout this period I have not wanted to appear as some "poverty tourist". At times this period from mid-October to this week has been very humbling, difficult, tiring, but not once did I feel as though mine was the worst lot of all. That I could walk three streets from my front door to people whose financial situations are far deeper and far more permanent than mine impressed upon me just how lucky I am that, in time, my situation would be resolved.

In my experience, the talk-show cliché "you think it would never happen to you: and then it does", has had its truth shown in the weeks where so many previous months of easy spending and impulse buying seemed to have no consequence at all. I cannot claim to be immune from future foul-ups, although I dare say I will never again fall into such deep problems. However I wonder how many people are out there, possibly on no more significant take home pay than me, who assume the national economic mess is of no consequence or significance to them?

This weekend, my temporary struggle against budgetary constraints will come to a close. Just in time for Christmas, too, well done Fate, good timing. I have the proof that my bank took three days before taking out the one final big spend from October, the catalyst for all this mess. I will take a lot of lessons from this. I don't know quite what will happen after not having any booze for 40 days: maybe my next series of posts will focus on the scientific proof that one pint can knock a grown man sideways...

Previous posts on this subject -
*no money, no excuses
*Pennywise
*Climbing out of recession

BBC Three is top-slice lamb

James and Rupert Murdoch are increasing their attacks against rival media and things will not get very pretty between now and the next UK general election in the summer of 2010. In the eyes of News International, the BBC is ripe for picking apart, not least because of the amount of "free" services from on-line news to original childrens' programming for an ultimate cost to the consumer far below that of a typical Sky subscription package. If the senior Murdoch's threatened court action against copyright fraud is successful the "news" tab on the top of peoples' iGoogle pages will be one of the most high profile casualties in this fight against media rivals.

For fans of the BBC, the talk of "top slicing" the licence fee sends shivers up the spine. Conservative leader David Cameron has allowed his Shadow Cabinet to talk freely about selling off bits of the Beeb, or to assist commercial rivals with monies taken from the TV Licence hitherto reserved to keeping the BBC delivering its programmes on television, radio, and through the online platforms such as iPlayer. Expect the now passionately Tory (and Murdoch owned) Sun newspaper to increase its support for asking Auntie to give up the money underneath her mattress for the good of commercial health in the country; first to go "part subscription" will undoubtedly be iPlayer, followed by the inevitable consolidation of regional radio stations.

Even as a fan of the BBC, I accept that the digital age means all of the current certainties of broadcasting must now exist with question marks overhead. Little things seen as somewhat inconsequential at the time - such as the internet only broadcast of the England v Ukraine qualifier - could well be important footnotes in the history of broadcasting come the ending of analogue television in 2012. That the BBC are somewhat "shielded" from the stormwinds of commercial factors will come under more scrutiny than ever; the superteam of an angry Murdoch and vote-chasing Cameron will combine against the Corporation like never before.

One potential victim in all this that may be accepted in the fight to save the BBC in its current form, with a licence fee pretty much (if not entirely) untouched and the online services free from subscription. If anything has to go, why not BBC Three?

The former BBC Choice (not "BBC Quirk") has struggled to win over any of its critics. The current programming is a muddle of sensationalism ("Too Fat To Hunt", "World's Strictest Parents"), and the kind of instant repeats expected from ITV 3 or Dave, such as the seemingly endless reruns of Doctor Who and Merlin. I am a huge Doctor Who fan (Second Doctor, since you ask), but even I have to wonder if there is any point in watching the Daleks in Manhattan every third week. American Dad and Family Guy should never have been shunted off BBC Two in the first place, and when stripped of all the above BBC Three barely seems worthy of a channel at all. If the Corporation wants to support new talent in acting or writing, allow BBC Four to run a series on it.

The BBC will struggle enough to justify the worryingly described "black music station" 1Xtra when the time comes to do so; in the meantime it has to check if the millions spent on BBC Three really do mean value for money. When it's possible to split its schedule to other channels so easily it becomes clear that there's a Murdoch sniper trained right at its head. On a multi-channel platform against Sky One or Virgin1, the loser is BBC Three. Sadly any talk of "top slicing" will mean accepting sacrificing something from the Corporation's network: BBC Three would seem to be the lamb its best to serve up in an attempt to keep either Murdoch or Cameron away from any tastier cuts.

Police reform means democratic accountability...

Summer, 2006. In Lancaster, local Liberal Democrats are helping collect signatures for a petition against Home Office plans to merge police forces in a drive to improve services and drive down costs. Some wag has printed posters warning against the safety dangers of taking "CaLPol", the unfortunate potential acronym for the new Cumbria & Lancashire police force.

A chubby young man with dreadlocks the colour of damp cobbles takes me to task about this latest LibDem rally. "You're the only party I could vote for if I felt like it, and you're sticking up for the police!" he charges. Turns out to be an anarchist, but clearly a wobbly one. Like a member of the Church of England, say, principled while not committed to anything.

Four years later and those plans, long since abandoned along with the succession of Home Secretaries, appear to be back on track. With the Conservatives citing their preferred option for Directly Elected Commissioners - something I support - there seems to be a pressing enthusiasm for cutting the numbers of Constabularies in the name of cost cutting and assisting in major investigations involving serious organised crime and terrorism. "Consolidation", of course, always means job losses and a growing distance between provider of a service and its customers. The threat of "CaLPol" returning is ever closer; I cannot say the idea of a "super force" stretching from Carlisle to Skelmersdale makes me feel safer or confident of low-level crime will be responded to any quicker than it is today.

My preference for directly elected commissioners is based on being attracted to the idea of accountability at the very top of all police forces. This is not about introducing a layer of party politicians at the top of the local constabulary, indeed nobody has actually suggested the elections take place on party lines. Across the country there are very highly successful examples of police and communities working together to suggest aims and judge police on their performances; I have seen very popular "Police and Communities Together" meetings in church halls and schools across Preston, where the only thing missing in my opinion is an independent figure at the top of the system able to judge the priorities and how they have been met.

There would be a worsening in performance if "super forces" across swathes of England and Wales were merged in the name of cost-cutting. I am, therefore, positioned on the other side of Sir Hugh Orde, who suggests mergers could be acceptable while commissioners would not.

Budget cuts and savings are required across the Home Office, who seem to zone into the "easier" targets whenever cost cuttings are mentioned. The dreadlocked man in Lancaster who disliked my party's support for the police in general may prefer us now Chris Huhne has spoken out against the Commissioners plan...but if faced with me again would have to jab his finger one more time.

Against The Odds

The video below is a Labour Conference film now set to be their next Party Political Broadcast.

What do you think about it?

Will it make you more likely to vote Labour ?

Justified and Ancient

Well, hasn't Nick Clegg caused a fuss today?

The leader of the Liberal Democrats has called for the cancellation of the Queen's Speech, calling it "window dressing" and "a displacement activity".

He is absolutely right, of course. And don't the political establishment hate it when someone says something against the grain of the norm?

Let us be honest. Gordon Brown is a dead duck, covered in oil and mud, sinking deeper into the mud ever closer towards political death. Attempts to help Labour from the worst election demise in history is akin to racing to the beach with a bucket and spade as the first waves of the oil slick slurp against the rocks. This Queen's Speech will absolutely be used for pushing the clean-up of politics to one side for the political benefit of the Labour Party; think about it as pinning a rosette on Elizabeth's crown.

Clegg has set fire to the norm because, as a refreshing and radical voice in politics, all liberals and Liberal Democrats walk with matchboxes in their pockets. There would be no benefit for Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs spending their time - no more than seventy days before the next UK general election - helping Labour form their next manifesto. Labour are a deflated and dying clutch of the desperate, a Party which is hoping a list of Bills they cannot possibly get through Parliament can grab the last positive headlines of their final months in office.

Thinking out of the norm is second nature to the real, credible alternatives in politics. Let us clean up Parliament for good, make real reform possible now, and stop dragging ourselves over the deep ruts of tradition for the sake of it.

Fixed-term parliaments, automatic General Elections as and when Prime Ministers are changed, voting reform, votes at 16, full devolution for Wales and the English Regions, ending the Royal prerogative on all but the most vital of reasons of the State, an automatic maximum number of Government Ministers, a fully elected House of Lords, directly elected Chiefs of Police, halving the number of Councillors and introducing "Street Panels" and inner-city Parish Councils: so much to do with our democracy, and not a single one of them needs Her Majesty, Black Rod, or the other flim-flam of a Queen's Speech.

Old Firm, new challenges

My post last week concerning proposals to bring Celtic and Rangers into a modified two-tier Premier League brought a very considered response in the Comments section from a reader called "Martin". This post is a part reply to him. It would appear, following the Premier League vote last week, that this "Anglo-Scottish League" proposal has been roundly defeated.

Martin says, "Having a two-tier Premier League would divide television revenue between 36 clubs rather than 20, and considering only two of those would be Scottish teams, 14 English clubs would be better off, increasing competitiveness at the higher end".

I think this statement presumes the television revenue would be fairly distributed and evenly granted between clubs. This presumption, under the new circumstances of an Anglo-Scottish league, lacks logic. The larger clubs, the "Big 4" of the Premier League, already command far more attention and television coverage than even those mid-table sides in the same league: it would be fanciful to suggest that Norwich or Hull or even perhaps Aston Villa would see similar benefits to a two-tier league than Manchester United or Arsenal. "Increasing competitiveness" could well be the end result, although not instantly; the special atmosphere between the "larger" clubs and Celtic or Rangers is often because of the rare European Cup ties between the sides, a relationship which would become lesser as the novelty of regular matches wears off.

Martin then lists a number of "cross country" examples, including the Welsh clubs which play in England (Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, Colwyn Bay, and Merthyr Tydfil), Monaco in France, and Derry FC in Ireland, amongst others. He is absolutely right to point out these examples. And he is right to suggest that "..[t]he only way that clubs from smaller nations will ever be able to compete with the financial monopoly of the big clubs is to play in their leagues, or form cross-country leagues."

With all due respect, Celtic or Rangers playing regular league football in England is not quite the same thing as Cardiff or Wrexham playing in England. That the Old Firm are "big fish" in a small nation is perhaps entirely a consequence of a mis-handling of the Scottish Leagues over generations. If something must be done, why not the "Atlantic League", where similarly sized nations could share revenues across borders without the wholesale negative consequences to England's footballing system?

Martin says that the Old Firm "leaving Scotland will improve the competitiveness of that league, and fill the ground two times more a season at every English club they play". I cannot agree completely with this all-done-and-dusted assumption. For sides already struggling in Leagues 1 and 2, the promise of expensive jaunts up to Glasgow twice a season to be roundly thumped in a stadium atmosphere completely alien to the rest of the League does not exactly glisten with gold.

Inventing traditions in football does not work. FIFA see this with their ill-fated World Club Cup competition, a globe-trotting failure completely disconnected from fans who have no attraction to watching unknown Asian clubs stretch out results against a seemingly never-ending rota of different African also-rans. There could be a great amount of financial benefit from introducing Celtic and Rangers into the English Premier League, not least for those larger clubs and more affluent fans for whom the lucrative profits would rush out of the gates and flood the club shop. Ultimately, however, the logistical difficulties and questionable benefits further down the leagues tip the balance against the proposals.

I would like to thank Martin for taking the time to respond to my first post. He makes a good case for the proposals, but ultimately I think the whole idea would do more harm than good.

Glasgow North East - Result

Glasgow North East by-election.

Labour GAIN from Speaker

Willie BAIN (Labour) 12,231 (59.4) {N/A}
David KERR (SNP) 4,120 (20.0) (+2.3)
Ruth DAVIDSON (Conservative) 1,075 (5.2) {N/A}
Charlie BAILLIE (BNP) 1,013 (4.9) {+1.7}
Tommy SHERIDAN (Solidarity) 794 (3.9) {N/A}
Eileen BAXENDALE (Liberal Democrat) 474 (2.3) {N/A}
David DOHERTY (Scottish Green) 332 (1.6) {N/A}
John SMEATON (Jury Team) 258 (1.2) {N/A}
Kevin McVEY (Scottish Socialist) 152 (0.7) {-4.2}
Mikey HUGHES (no label) 54 (0.3) {N/A}
Louise McDAID (Socialist Labour) 47 (0.2) {-14.0}
Mev BROWN (Independent) 32 (0.2) {N/A}
Colin CAMPBELL (TILT) 13 (0.1) {N/A}

Labour majority over SNP - 8,111
(2005 - Speaker majority over SNP - 10,134)

Premier League II

I could not put it better myself, really. Everton really must be having a 'mare with David Moyes is now getting all Satire-waving about the "inevitable" coming of "Premier League 2".

On the most basic argument, any additional top league in English football featuring the Old Firm rivals Celtic and Rangers would put an end to the long serving tradition of British football. As a kind of "thank you" to inventing the modern game, the four Home Nations are awarded four separate seats on the FIFA and UEFA top tables; England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales. Okay, we're not quite unique in this, France has a separate international team within its borders, but I won't give away this pub quiz answer today....

For Celtic and Rangers to become permanent, full members of the otherwise English Premier League, the whole future set up of the national and international game would change forever. UEFA and FIFA have made it quite clear that a separate English international football team would not exist were the Old Firm to become members of any national football division. Remember the fuss regarding Cardiff winning the FA Cup not being able to take part in European cup competitions? Think about that writ large.

If the idea of a joint Anglo-Scottish football team doesn't jump out at you (oh imagine the pubs before kick-off...), what about the future of the lower leagues? The amount of money trickling down to even League 1 and League 2 levels is not torrenting down in great waves; an increasing number of Conference and non-league sides are up against the financial wall including Hyde, Farsley Celtic, and Chester. The possibility of having a "walled garden" outside of which survive a withering clutch of barely solvent league teams is nothing short of offensive.

"Mighty" Anderlecht are about discussing the "Atlantic League" theory in case a British "Premier League 2" falls flat. If the notion of pan-European league fills you with a logistical shiver down the spine, you may not be the only ones. But the future of British football, which is far more than sepia-tinged nostalgia for half-time pies and giant killing, relies on the four Home Nations having leagues of their own. Cross-border leagues do not exist in any other country in the world; for clear and unique reasons, the United Kingdom does not suit the notion of a grouped league football format.

Healthy and economically strong our football teams are not (Spurs aside, and there are rather dodgy non-politically correct suggestions for why...). Bringing English and Scottish leagues together in any form would merely produce an incredibly exclusive clutch of world-famous franchises kept away from the motley crews (and indeed, Crewe) below. As a fan of football, and of the lower league game specifically, the prospect does not thrill me with joy at all.

Votes @ 16 B4 '10

Last week, Gordon Brown suggested that he supported the call for "votes at 16". The question was put by Phyllis Starkey, of the Milton Keynes South West constituency, and apparent expenses-related farago. But enough of her. The main issue is one of the few outstanding electoral improvements I think Labour should enact immediately; it took over a generation to give women the vote, decades to lower the voting age to 18, with the second decade of this 21st Century almost two generations from this last welcome move.

With the age at which people can be a candidate now at 18, the time to bring the voting age in line with most other "society says you're an adult now" levels is all the more relevant. Sixteen is not exactly an age at which people are clueless children; "Make Poverty History" and anti-fascist demonstrations show a growing number of teenagers who are rejecting party politics in preference to single-issues. This should be encouraged as much as possible; the often sneered at world of "student politics" is far deeper than detractors would have believe.

Through Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, younger people who feel marginalised by the political processes have found other means to react and interact with the matters of the day. Be it the drug legalisation debate, student fees, or how to deal with persistent illegal downloading of music, teenagers are more at the centre of the contemporary political debate than ever before. If a candidate aged 18 can request the support of a large electorate in an election, how can it be justified to ignore a growing surge of 16 and 17-year olds whose points of reference are so similar?

As a long-time (failed!) candidate in elections, I have first hand knowledge that not all adults walk into polling stations having read each and every party manifesto. This kills the notion that awarding teenagers the vote would somehow award ignorance. It's simply not the case.

The entrenched party loyalties often stubbornly stuck to by people in their 30s, 40s, and older, do not exist to the same extent with younger voters; continued polls of the young show a taste for democracy and a willingness not to be loyal to one "brand" or "party". Elections to and activities in the Youth Parliament continue to grow as increasing numbers of young people find their voice at a time when "youngster" so often means "thug" or "clueless hoodie" in the columns of the tabloid press.

Labour do not have a faultless record with either electoral administration, or policies which improve the lot of younger people. They should not be scared to embrace the one policy which would bring into the political process thousands of people whose minds are open to questioning the norm and walking against the tide. Relevance to the debates which alter their lives seem so distant at a time when politics is alive with issues. Sixteen year olds are in the same position today as 18 year olds were in the 1960s; a new generation of people more than able to participate in politics. It is time for the improvement to be made, for the issue to be sorted out before the next general election.

Give 16 year olds the vote.

Why I support John and Edward

X-Factor viewers are not exactly in for a treat this year. Acts already out of the contest include a group who turned the self-referential nature of reality television on its head by being manufactured live on air; and a bite-sized Lee Evans with the inability to talk without breaking into tears accompanied by a soft-piano backing track, as though he pressed play on a tape-recording of sorrowful music whenever the moment suited it.

Remaining wannabes do not exactly justify the idea that the United Kingdom is the hotbed of musical talent. One contestant, Stacey, is something of a shapeshifter, talking like the a hairdresser from Hell one minute before channeling the spirit of a cruise ship warbler when she sings. A bloke called Daryl, whose attitude appears to be younger than the children he teaches, proves he can sing by unnecessarily holding onto notes at the end of each verse for the sake of a whooping applause.

Above all of the hopefuls sits the one last hope in reality television, however. I like to call it the "Michelle McManus Phenomenon", relating to the woman whose success in Pop Idol some years ago was almost certainly down to the concerted nationwide effort to give victory to the antidote to variety shows. Larger than most pop stars, and without anything like a distinctive voice, McManus was the victor the producers, presenters, and music company did not want to touch with a bargepole. Her victory was probably best characterised by the mysterious disappearance of her second single days after appearing on television promoting its release.

"Michelle McManus Phenomenon" is about to happen again with the X-Factor secret weapon; two Irish lads called John and Edward. If enough Facebook petitions, bored tabloid journalists, and Twitter users can keep pressing Redial on their phones, these two lads may well be the death of X-Factors from this year hence. Imagine the power. "Jedward" have almost no actual talent; their singing is breathless and often out of tune, their dancing uncertain and without much choreography. Like John Sergeant on Strictly Come Dancing last year, their continued appearances are thanks to a population who want to stick two fingers up at the perceived wisdom that producers knows better than consumers. Nobody actually wants tone-deaf Irish kids on their radio every day, but imagine trying to give X-Factor and other such shows credibility ever again were they to win.

This is why I fully support the two frankly terrible young lads to win. Not because I am a fan of the show, or of them, or their "mentor" Louis Walsh. Because I remember the amount of laughing around the country when Pop Idol judges were forced to grin and applaud as Michelle McManus blandly warbled her way through a two-bit pop song. Because I remember Alex Parks on BBC One's Fame Academy, the spiky-haired Cornish lesbian who sounded like Tracy Thorn with hiccups, but who nevertheless was an actual talented singer held back by the prejudices connected to winning a phone-in reality show.

Putting an end to such shows in the future is a bold aim. It could just work. To ensure X-Factor has to suffer a serious pride-fall from which it may never recover, all support must now turn to the two people who can bring down its empire. It's time to vote like you've never done before. It's time to celebrate the Britney Spears cover-versions and uncertain high-kicks and garbled half-forgotten lyrics. It's time to hand victory to John and Edward.

It's the least we can do for the good of our country.