Going out for New Year’s Eve is overrated isn’t it? A surprising number of people seem to know this deep down and yet so many of us feel the need to drag ourselves out, pay over the odds to get in somewhere distinctly underwhelming that’ll be free on any other day.
Staying in, maybe with a few friends, is what a lot of us would rather do, so why embrace something so utterly pointless and underwhelming as watching our clocks all night in an overpriced and overhyped environment with people too drunk to know what year it is anyway?
With 2016 about to begin, here’s ten other things that I think are almost as naff as New Year’s Eve…
1. Halloween. I’ve always felt it was a bit naff but it’s even worse than ever now. Most people’s outfits aren’t remotely ‘spooky’ and it’s largely just an excuse for adults with more money than sense to pretend they’re kids again.
2. Black Friday. How many people here celebrate Thanksgiving? No? In which case, why get caught up in the day after, which is traditionally where electrical retailers woo in not-at-work shoppers to spend on bargains.
3. The X Factor. Has anyone even heard the winner’s song? Time for a break Simon.
4. The Apprentice. Since Old Sugar isn’t even looking for an apprentice any more isn’t it about time this was brought to an end? People who show a flair for selling spuds in round one get to the final ahead of those who might actually have an entrepreneurial idea that is worth investing in. Pointless.
5. Formula One. Rich kids squabbling over which has the fastest car? Not for me.
6. Adele’s new song. Yep, there you go, I’ve said it. I like Adele, she’s a great character and I’m pleased with the success she’s had. But that song? Yawn. I wouldn’t fancy paying over the odds to see a concert full of that fare.
7. Sports Personality of the Year. I love the BBC – and we should all fight to keep it – but this is Auntie at her worst. A silly backslapping charade.
8. The Honours System. Another year, another round of uproar at ill-deserved gongs handed out to vaguely famous people for ‘doing their job’ or mates of whoever is in power. The worst thing is that this discredits the worthy efforts of the folk who get the ‘lesser’ awards for community work that really does deserve an honour.
9. Superhero films. Haven’t we reached fatigue with these superhero franchises? How many more Batman tales are there to tell? How about some new characters and storylines? Just a thought.
10. US TV dramas. Don’t get me wrong. There are some cracking shows from the US but too many people start with the assumption that because it’s from America and on Netflix it’s instantly better than a British programme. If Sherlock or Luther were American they’d probably be hyped beyond recognition, and spun out over a too-many-episode series to boot. The Americans are good at big budget, but we are good at tight, well-written drama too. It’s time for some love for our shows too.
Ok, that’s enough grumpiness for now. I’m sure that’s upset plenty of people! The point is that plenty of things are, when you strip away the hype, just a little bit naff aren’t they?
It’d be nice if we approached life by forming our own opinions, rather than liking things because we’re told to and they’re popular. I appreciate that other people do like the ten above but it’s fine not to go with the flow. It’d be boring if we all agreed and it is boring when people like things because it’s the done thing.
I know that some people think the things I like – football, cricket, politics, history – are naff but I’m fine with people not agreeing with me.
So, Happy New Year, and here’s the end of bandwagons. Cheers.
Thursday 31 December 2015
Monday 30 November 2015
Mumford and Sons gig was a musical feast
Sometimes the best things in life are unexpected aren't they? That was certainly the case when I saw Mumford and Sons' tour-opening gig at the Capital FM Arena in Nottingham. It was thanks to a good friend and a stroke of luck that I went on Saturday night and fortunately those circumstances resulted in a cracking feast of music.
You can't help but admire anyone with a musical flair and there's no denying that Mumford and Sons have got that in spades. This was a two hour guitar, piano, banjo, horn, drum and double bass frenzy. Visually stunning and musically rich.
This was a band on the top of its game, three albums - and plenty of awards - in to their career, they were confident, consummate and looked to be having fun. We certainly were in the crowd even if the praise for Jamie Vardy nearly backfired in Nottingham.
I'm not sure how the band's change of style for the latest album has gone down among hardcore fans, with the synonymous banjo sidelined for the electric guitar. I reckon they've managed to stay clear of slipping into a generic sound and the new songs blended in seamlessly, adding variety to a gig that still delivered old favourites such as The Cave and Little Lion Man. The only slight disappointment was the lack of Winter Winds from Sigh No More but you cant have them all can you?
Singles Believe, Ditmas and The Wolf were gratefully lapped up while I'm a fan of Tompkins Square Park. Cold Arms, meanwhile, was part of an intimate one-microphone two-song set with Timshel that brought proceedings right in front of us.
A brief diversion into Eurythmics' Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This) was entertaining and made use of the talents of up-and-coming support star Jack Garratt.
This might not have been a planned date in the diary but it was certainly a memorable one. Here's to more pleasant surprises...
Friday 16 October 2015
Starsailor's superb show delivered the goods
It's an odd thing being a fan isn't it? You spend all of your time looking forward to seeing your favourite football team, TV show or band and following their fortunes. Yet, when push comes to shove, there's a moment of doubt. That moment when worry sets in.
You'd have been forgiven for a pang of worry coming to Starsailor's greatest hits tour, could they still nail that back catalogue?
Yet, barely seconds in to the gig at The Waterfront in Norwich any fan worry clearly dissipated. James Walsh strode onto the stage and powered out Poor Misguided Fool, one of seven tracks from debut album Love Is Here to be performed in a true treat of a show.
A good gig often encourages me to appreciate a good song even more - and that was certainly the case with the hideously underrated Way To Fall, tweaked a little here to add an effective bit of audience interaction. Lullaby, Fever, Alcoholic all formed part of a set that should remind casual fans just how good Love Is Here really was.
The band's other three albums also contributed to a generous set list - which also featured the new track Give Up The Ghost, a welcome new addition to the fold.
Walsh kept the banter to a minimum, with the odd bit of natural charm thrown in as he paused to take on water in the sweltering atmosphere of this intimate venue. For the most, though, he let his voice do the talking. None of the power of the record had waned and he left you hoping that the band has even more to offer.
There was certainly no better way to bring the curtain down that with Good Souls, the track that gave its name to this greatest hits tour.
Great memories, great tracks and a great performance - you couldn't ask for more.
You'd have been forgiven for a pang of worry coming to Starsailor's greatest hits tour, could they still nail that back catalogue?
Yet, barely seconds in to the gig at The Waterfront in Norwich any fan worry clearly dissipated. James Walsh strode onto the stage and powered out Poor Misguided Fool, one of seven tracks from debut album Love Is Here to be performed in a true treat of a show.
Really loving our UK tour so far! pic.twitter.com/1wwn07zBit
— Starsailor Official (@Starsailorband) October 5, 2015A good gig often encourages me to appreciate a good song even more - and that was certainly the case with the hideously underrated Way To Fall, tweaked a little here to add an effective bit of audience interaction. Lullaby, Fever, Alcoholic all formed part of a set that should remind casual fans just how good Love Is Here really was.
The band's other three albums also contributed to a generous set list - which also featured the new track Give Up The Ghost, a welcome new addition to the fold.
Walsh kept the banter to a minimum, with the odd bit of natural charm thrown in as he paused to take on water in the sweltering atmosphere of this intimate venue. For the most, though, he let his voice do the talking. None of the power of the record had waned and he left you hoping that the band has even more to offer.
There was certainly no better way to bring the curtain down that with Good Souls, the track that gave its name to this greatest hits tour.
Great memories, great tracks and a great performance - you couldn't ask for more.
Wednesday 16 September 2015
From now on, it's all Jeremy Corbyn's fault
Rejoice nation, rejoice. For we have a new scapegoat on which to heap all of our misery. We have Jeremy Corbyn.
This is a man who failed to recognise that the Second World War was fought and won so that we now have the freedom to force people to sing songs that they don't agree with.
The new Labour leader shall, it seems, be forever pre-fixed by the term 'hard left' in the same way that 'so called' is added to Islamic State. We disagree with them both so much that we don't really think they deserve to have a name. As a result we act as though not talking about them properly might make them just go away so we don't have to deal with them.
This, let us not forget, is a man who fails to dress properly. By not doing his top button up he, clearly, might as well be wearing Bermuda shorts and walking around bare chested as public events. As one man rightly put it on the news - if he can't dress himself properly then why should we listen to him on the way the nation dresses? Indeed. And we haven't even touched on his taste in socks.
It'd be preposterous to have a politics where people didn't dress like the elite wouldn't it? If politicians don't all dress, talk and think the same then what excuse will we all have for not getting off our backsides to vote every five years?
This is a man whose victory was clearly a sham because it was only based on winning a large majority of the party he's leading. It's not like the Prime Minister was elected leader of his party in a vote where the entire turnout was less than the amount Corbyn polled, having finishing second to David Davis in the first round. That definitely didn't happen.
He can't possibly be legitimate because he forced an attention-seeking weasel - who no-one has ever heard of - to resign during his acceptance speech. That too was followed by the resignation of several other people who just led their party to defeat. They must know better surely?
He even asked for questions from the public to put to the Prime Minister at PMQs, as if the people who vote really deserve to have their opinions and suggestions aired in the Commons. Crazy.
Most frightening of all is the fact that this man, who can't dress, sing or ask questions properly, is, at the same time - and in a position that is in no way contradicTory - ruddy bloody dangerous.
Don't believe me? The Prime Minister said so himself.
Yep, he's coming for your families folks. It's your duty to hate him and blame him for everything.
----------------
In all seriousness I don't yet know what I think of Jeremy Corbyn. Bizarrely, I actually believe in giving someone a fair hearing and have been left unsettled by the hysteria so far.
He might be old (another stick to beat him with) but he has fresh ideas and a fresh team, let's at least hear their policies and see what they try to do before shooting them down in flames.
He might turn out to be a disaster, as many predict, but if we never let someone who sounds or looks different have a chance then we're pretty sad and intolerant as a nation.
"Corbyn snubs Queen and Country" - Jeremy Corbyn dominating today's papers. http://t.co/3cF6YoKovI Pic @suttonnick pic.twitter.com/2ojDILYrqW
— BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) September 16, 2015This is a man who failed to recognise that the Second World War was fought and won so that we now have the freedom to force people to sing songs that they don't agree with.
The new Labour leader shall, it seems, be forever pre-fixed by the term 'hard left' in the same way that 'so called' is added to Islamic State. We disagree with them both so much that we don't really think they deserve to have a name. As a result we act as though not talking about them properly might make them just go away so we don't have to deal with them.
This, let us not forget, is a man who fails to dress properly. By not doing his top button up he, clearly, might as well be wearing Bermuda shorts and walking around bare chested as public events. As one man rightly put it on the news - if he can't dress himself properly then why should we listen to him on the way the nation dresses? Indeed. And we haven't even touched on his taste in socks.
It'd be preposterous to have a politics where people didn't dress like the elite wouldn't it? If politicians don't all dress, talk and think the same then what excuse will we all have for not getting off our backsides to vote every five years?
Jeremy Corbyn has won the #LabourLeadership contest: http://t.co/SoyYobeOiL pic.twitter.com/Vhrs5TH1w9
— HuffPost UK (@HuffPostUK) September 12, 2015This is a man whose victory was clearly a sham because it was only based on winning a large majority of the party he's leading. It's not like the Prime Minister was elected leader of his party in a vote where the entire turnout was less than the amount Corbyn polled, having finishing second to David Davis in the first round. That definitely didn't happen.
He can't possibly be legitimate because he forced an attention-seeking weasel - who no-one has ever heard of - to resign during his acceptance speech. That too was followed by the resignation of several other people who just led their party to defeat. They must know better surely?
He even asked for questions from the public to put to the Prime Minister at PMQs, as if the people who vote really deserve to have their opinions and suggestions aired in the Commons. Crazy.
Most frightening of all is the fact that this man, who can't dress, sing or ask questions properly, is, at the same time - and in a position that is in no way contradicTory - ruddy bloody dangerous.
Don't believe me? The Prime Minister said so himself.
The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family's security.
— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) September 13, 2015Yep, he's coming for your families folks. It's your duty to hate him and blame him for everything.
----------------
In all seriousness I don't yet know what I think of Jeremy Corbyn. Bizarrely, I actually believe in giving someone a fair hearing and have been left unsettled by the hysteria so far.
He might be old (another stick to beat him with) but he has fresh ideas and a fresh team, let's at least hear their policies and see what they try to do before shooting them down in flames.
He might turn out to be a disaster, as many predict, but if we never let someone who sounds or looks different have a chance then we're pretty sad and intolerant as a nation.
Monday 10 August 2015
10 thoughts on the Labour leadership race
What a joy the Ashes has been this summer. Not least because it has been a welcome break from the General Election politics binge. Still, the fallout from the ballot box battering continues for the Labour Party and, with the contest to find a new leader STILL not over, here's ten musings on the race to replace Ed Miliband...
Why The Labour Leadership Race Is Now Wide Open http://t.co/vYXT50nkOA pic.twitter.com/jSzjee9fWr
— Sky News (@SkyNews) August 7, 2015
1. Why the hell is it taking so long?
Yes, I know the party said it wanted to have a full debate about the future after the election night disaster but this is ridiculous. We are still more than a month away from the winner being announced. It'll be 128 days since the election by the time it comes out. The message sent the to electorate is that they don't know what they're doing. I know Parliament is off for its usual lengthy summer off but, given that the candidates have been known for some time, couldn't this have all been wrapped up by now?
2. Why so nasty?
Maybe the inordinate amount of time take has led the contest to becoming so bitter? It certainly has looked more fiercely and angrily fought than the election itself, even if this has largely been from the respective 'camps' rather than the contenders themselves. The criticism of Liz Kendall for being 'childless' was shameful. Whatever you think of her that was poor and, again, gave the electorate more reason to see the party as being out of touch.
3. Any ideas?
It's not enough for the other candidates to shout and bellow at Jeremy Corbyn for being 'unelectable'. How about explaining which of his ideas and policies won't work - since there are legitimate debates on this front - and countering them with different suggestions? Too much of the talk from the other camps has been about throwing negatives at Corbyn's door while trying to avoid promising bold policies that can't be defended in an election manifesto.
4. Can Corbyn win?
I never actually thought Jeremy Corbyn would come remotely close to winning but the veteran MP finds himself in front. I still get the impression he might be overtaken but his rise has been a surprise. Perhaps it shouldn't be though. Having someone like him on the ticket was always likely to show the others up for spouting too many soundbites. He represents genuine change in a way that none of the others have come close to doing and he hasn't been afraid to throw up some bold ideas. As things stand Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham seem to be mopping up supporters with similar outlooks. You feel that one of them will have to surge ahead to knock Corbyn out of the race.
5. Clause 4 mistake
Corbyn did make a big mistake when hinting that he wouldn't be against a return to 'Clause Four' in this weekend's Independent on Sunday. Yes, he actually referred to coming up with something new in the same spirit but bringing it up by name simply gave ammunition to others of a return to the past. Labour should look for a snappier more modern way of defining itself - but not in the form of the cheesy soundbites attached to the leadership campaigns or retreading the steps of the past.
6. Heir to Blair
Labour has a huge hang up about Tony Blair but surely it's about time it dropped it. I know many of the party's members can't look past Iraq (and granted that's a massive issue) but the failure to accept and celebrate any of the positives from his era paved the way for their opponents to paint the entire time in a bad light. Labour has to admit Blair was an electoral success and learn why.
7. Image matters
One of the lessons to come from the Blair era is the importance of having someone who looks and sounds like a leader. In many respects it's sad that the public cares about image so much. Having strong ideas and convictions ought to come first before the ability to 'sound good on the telly' but they don't. Take a look at the last Parliament. Even when Labour was ahead - during the days of fuel crises and the unravelling budget of caravans and pasties etc - David Cameron was way ahead of Ed Miliband when it came to asking the public who would make the best PM. It's an odd thing that we elect parties and MPs yet focus most of our attention on a presidential style contest between one or two combatants. Until that changes, Labour needs a leader with wide appeal.
8. The wrong contest?
It's easy to forget that Ed Miliband deserved to win the last Labour leadership election. Yes he gained the support of the unions but, actually, he did perform well in the contender debates. The trouble was that it came down to a student debating contest that wasn't necessarily helpful for the role of leader of the opposition.
9. Voting system
It might have seemed like a nice idea, but will inviting people to pay £3 to become eligible to vote backfire? The talk of a joint infiltration of Telegraph readers and the far left - not normally bedfellows - seems to have be overblown but it does seem that if Corbyn wins he'll have to shake this tag off just as Miliband did the 'in the unions' pocket' jibe.
10. Taking on Boris
Theresa May and George Osborne may have their eyes on the Conservative Party leadership but surely the stage is set for Boris Johnson to be the leader by the time the next election comes around? Labour will need a strong candidate to take him on. I can't help thinking that old BoJo might struggle against a formidable female...
Tuesday 21 July 2015
First-timer's view of Lord's as Australia power to victory over England
It was a superb innings for Veuve Clicquot. The flashy French bubbly flowed much easier than England's runs and ensured the chaps in the row in front of me made hay in the summer London sunshine.
Mind you, the £70-a-bottle price tag probably stung their bank balances almost as sharply as the Australian quicks did England's batsmen. Led by a vicious and incisive Mitchell Johnson, the pace attack were the real stars of the show, shining on the hallowed turf of the Home of Cricket and backing up a dominant batting display to deliver a thumping series equaliser for the men in the Baggy Greens.
|
 |
| Our fantastic view from the Edrich Stand Upper |
Saturday at Lord's did feel pretty special. It was an honour to be at one of world's most famous venues to soak in one of the oldest and keenly contested rivalries in sport.
Like many cricket grounds, Lord's is a odd jigsaw puzzle of interlocking stands of various sizes and ages, with the pavilion and futuristic media centre at opposite ends physically and historically.
I was surprised at how friendly it actually felt. Lord's has a reputation for being a bit stuffy. The bacon and eggs ties, formality and tradition coming to mind. But, from the moment I stepped from St John's Wood Tube - which for such occasions becomes much busier than it sizes suggests it should be - there were people offering to help in a generally jovial-but-serious atmosphere leading to the famous ground itself.
Once inside I was struck by just how much was going on. The Nursery Ground, museum, outdoor drinking areas and restaurants dotted around the outside meant you barely needed set foot in the stands. Yes some bits do ooze tradition but there was a charm with it too. I guess if you hang around too long near the posher parts of the ground you'd feel out of place but it was fun to mingle with the people sporting the garish blazers for brief novelty value.
Yet, fun as the peripheral activities seemed the cricketing action was what we'd come for and England had a game to save. Resuming on 85-4 after the Australians had posted a mammoth 566-8 declared, it was an almighty ask.
Any Test Match seems to enjoy the same atmosphere before a ball is bowled - a low hum of chatter as spectators settle and ponder the play ahead followed by rapturous response to every ball for a few overs. Lord's was no different although obviously sans fancy dress and musical instruments, the sorts of things that look fun on the telly but that, in truth, you don't necessarily want to be sitting too near on the day.
All hopes seemed to rest on record run scorer and captain Alistair Cook, the man with the patience, resolve and technique to weather the Antipodean storm about to hit him. He was to be aided and abetted by one of the nation's bright new hopes in Ben Stokes - a man who announced himself onto the international scene with a century in Australia amid a dismal whitewash defeat for England.
 |
| Mitchell Johnson about to steam in to Ben Stokes |
It all went to plan at the start. Stokes showed himself to be far more than an aggressive slogger with some impressive 'proper cricket shots'. Any glimmers of trouble for the Durham man were simply shaken off with the confidence of a young star with the world at his feet. Cook meanwhile was watchful and careful - two qualities so rare these days that make innings such as these fascinating to watch. He edged along at one run per over he'd been at the middle, anchoring the innings in the 'lead by example' way in which he conducts his captaincy.
Sadly though, both batsmen perished before they reached the hundreds I felt they had deserved. First Stokes proved unable to last until lunch, dragging a skiddy Mitchell Marsh delivery onto his timbers. This sent a ripple of shock through the Lord's crowd who were just beginning to settle down to a long day at the crease for the home side.
If Stokes' dismissal was disappointing, Cook's was a hammer blow and one which provided the defining image of the whole match. Well set on 96 runs, the captain was braced for a 28th test match hundred, his first home Ashes ton, just before the arrival of tea. Most importantly of all, he was wel in ahead of the impending arrival of the second new ball. Yet Cook reached for a delivery outside off stump from Marsh - that man again - and followed Stokes' suit, crashing the ball into his leg stump off an inside edge. He instantly sunk to his knees in realisation. It may have been some time before the last rites, but this was effectively the moment England finally lost the match.
Alastair Cook sweats blood for England but misses out on ton | @selvecricket http://t.co/1TuYIoVsxa (Photo: Reuters) pic.twitter.com/odYPSCn6vW
— Guardian sport (@guardian_sport) July 18, 2015
Predictably, without Cook the innings faded and, equally predictably, Australia didn't enforce the follow on. Clarke instead chose to come out and grind England down, pile on the runs and let his bowlers recharge for another burst. Warner offered a chance to Lyth but from then on played a sensible and impressive innings with Rogers, the wise old head, the perfect foil. If Cook is England's study in test match poise and patience, Rogers is Australia's. The duo both ended the day unbeaten to put the cherry on the cake.That pair and Cook and Stokes aside this, though, was a day for the Australian quick bowlers to flex their muscles.
 |
| A happy block of Australians in standard-issue yellow caps |
He had control to go with his ferocity as part of a bowling unit that was impressive as a whole - the fast and full Starc, naggingly accurate Hazlewood, skiddy Marsh and wily Lyon.
Credit, too, must go to Clarke for the way he shuffled his pack. No batsmen was allowed to settle - not even Cook and Stokes - as he rotated his quick bowlers in short spells to ensure his men never burned out. The combination of different angles and speeds make for a tough test of a batsmen's ability to adapt.
It was clear by the time we left the ground that it was only a case of when and not if England succumbed to a defeat. The manner of the loss the next day was worrying though - with batsmen unable to put up much of a fight against Johnson and co. Defeat was one thing but the manner of it was something else, giving blood for the Aussies to scent come Edgbaston next week.
Still, cricket is a sport I am able to enjoy in spite of the performance of 'my team'. Yes, I wanted England to win but it was a pleasure to see the Aussie attack in the flesh and, above all else, finally make the pilgrimage to Lord's.
It'd be interesting to go back for a county game to explore the surrounds fully - away from the crowds of a test match day - but equally it was special to be there for the Ashes. England may not have performed but the weather did and the venue lived up to the occasion.
Trent Bridge will always be my cricketing home but Lord's, like the ever-flowing Veuve Clicquot, was the sort of classy-but-expensive pleasure well worth sampling for a treat (although I stuck to the £4.80 beer and benefitted from the skills of a friend to get in).
Tuesday 14 July 2015
Ten talking points as the Ashes heads to HQ
The Lord's test begins on Thursday, with England heading to the Home of Cricket in good shape after a superb 169-run win over Australia in Cardiff.
England win by 169 runs!!
Yes boys! Top performance
#Ashes pic.twitter.com/I6E0Xflx6L
— England Cricket (@englandcricket) July 11, 2015
Here's ten thoughts looking back on that victory, and forward to the next game (everyone loves a listicle right?)...
1. Siddle on the slope
It's refreshing to be able to go into the second test with no selection debates for England. Australia, meanwhile, might be weighing up a change or two. Personally, if I were the Australians I'd turn to Peter Siddle. He's aggressive, consistent and experienced and should drive the likes of Johnson, Starc or Hazlewood on. The aggression would be help the visitors go toe to toe with the likes of Stokes while his consistency and experience could be vital given the lack of the recently retired Ryan Harris. I also fancy he'd do well on the infamous Lord's slope.
2. Haddin Out
He may be one of the more combative members of the touring party, but every cricket fan must surely wish Brad Haddin well. He has withdrawn due to family reasons and you only have to hope all is well. He leaves big shoes to fill - and 29-year-old Peter Nevill will be faced with that daunting task.
Brad Haddin has withdrawn from second #Ashes Test for family reasons. Peter Nevill to debut: http://t.co/2L3kvg5z7t pic.twitter.com/rC4hV7inCX
— cricket.com.au (@CricketAus) July 14, 2015
3. Pitch perfect?
There was a lot of crowing about the pitch in Cardiff and it seemed unfair. Plenty of runs were scored at a good pace, while bowlers were able to chip in with wickets when they put the ball in the right areas. The pitch delivered a good match and a result, what more do people want? Graeme Swann made a good point when he alluded to the fact that new drainage systems have dried out many pitches in this country and made them a little slower.
4. Ali again
At some point people are going to have to accept that Moeen Ali is a worthy first choice spinner for England, especially in home conditions. If 19 wickets against India last summer weren't enough, he took big wickets at important times in the first test to remind a few of the critics what he can do. I enjoyed Ed Smith's piece in the Sunday Times on Moeen, he has, oddly, become the ideal number eight.
5. Lyon king
While we're on spin, Nathan Lyon deserves a mention. Little is said about the Aussie spinner but he was probably the most potent part of the attack in Cardiff. England should underestimate him at their peril, he'll take plenty of wickets this summer if he continues in the same vein.
6. Captain Cook
Hats off to Alistair Cook. While the skipper didn't deliver the best of tallies with the bat, he more than made up for it with good catching and excellent captaincy. In typically understated fashion he rotated his attack to good effect and they all responded with excellent execution of their skills. This should form the blueprint for success going forward.
7. Leave Root alone
Man of the match Joe Root was magnificent again and a real joy to watch. Let's leave him exactly where he is in the order - and not weigh him down with the captaincy any time soon - and hope his form can continue for as long as possible.
8. Complacency
It's not only Lyon that England would do well be mindful of. Some pundits - probably the same ones who wrote England off entirely - have virtually written the Aussies off and that's dangerous. The experience and talent in the Aussie squad is such that nothing should be taken for granted. Darren Lehmann is hardly going to let his men roll over either.
9. Any draws?
One thing that struck me about the way both teams played their cricket is how neither side seems suited to toughing out a draw. Both sides are filled with naturally attacking batsmen with just a couple of characters who look as though they could drop anchor and see out time. Rain or circumstances may prove me wrong, but the manner in which both teams play suggests there could be plenty of results and maybe not too many fifth days.
10. Ticket holder
Thanks to a friend - a VERY good friend - I shall be heading to Lord's for the first time to see day three of the upcoming test. Last time the Aussies were here I had tickets to the fourth day at Trent Bridge and it's amazing how this affects your view of the play. In 2013 I endured a highly nervy third day, desperately hoping the game would slow down and things would stop 'happening'. It's an odd thing as a fan, you want your side to do well, but not too well until you see your slice of the action.
Tuesday 7 July 2015
Stage set for Ashes thrills and spills
48 days, 22 players, 5 tests, 2 nations and one 11cm tall urn. The Ashes begins tomorrow as England and Australia battle it out to try to win the tiny trophy that is surely the hardest in the whole of sport to hold aloft in celebration. Still, it's an endearing quirk of this most enduring of sporting rivalries.
The Ashes may have been played a little too often in recent years due to a schedule that is harder to decipher than the Duckworth Lewis method, but that hasn't dampened the spirits ahead of this clash. In fact, a combination of a big change in personnel for England and a stunning test and one-day series with Australia's Antipodean neighbours, means this series feels surprisingly fresh.
In many respects the tables have turned completely from 2013. Then England were the older and more settled side, buoyed by a series victory in Australia and a widely feared bowling lineup. Australia were regrouping under a new coach and were attempting to integrate newer players who had plied their trade in the more aggressive confines of the shorter form of the game.
Now, fast forward two years and England go into this series led by a new coach - an Aussie no less to add yet another subplot - and are trying to harness a new spirit from players with one-day experience. Australia's pace attack has established a fearful reputation and that, coupled with buckets of experience in the batting ranks, makes them clear favourites. It probably says a lot about the respective nations that Aussies have been queuing up to make bold predictions of a whitewash while Ian Bell, a veteran of six series, is happy to accept the role of underdog for the home team (which, it's worth noting, hasn't lost an Ashes in England since 2001).
Despite the fact that the Baggy Greens have the world's number one batsman in their ranks in Steve Smith, you do feel that the series rests on the way England's batsmen cope with the Australian attack.
The visitors arrive from Down Under with the most fearful pair of Mitchells since Grant and Phil from Eastenders in the shape of bowling duo Starc and Johnson. Johnson blew the batsmen away with sheer pace on his home soil in 2013/14 and will be hoping that his sheer reputation sends ripples of fear through the home dressing room. Even more worrying for England is the fact that Starc is possibly even better.
The aggression of Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler could meet their fire with a counter-attacking fire, but England will need to accept that there will be failures in taking such an approach. All concerned must hold their nerve and back such players to come good. The players themselves need to find the right tone, remembering that they are in a test and not a T20.
Before these champing-at-the-bit youngsters arrive at the crease though it's up to Captain Cook to steer his side through the early exchanges. He has shown promising signs so far in 2015 of a return to form and it's hard to imagine an England win without a significant contribution from the nation's record test run scorer.
While Cook needs to draw on all of his powers of concentration to set the tone with the bat, his fellow record breaker Jimmy Anderson will need to shine with the ball. Much is made of the 'English conditions' being tough to cope with. Anderson - in tandem with Stuart Broad - is vital to making this home advantage pay.
In a way that's the key to success for England. The old timers - Cook, Bell, Anderson and Broad - must set a solid platform from which the younger players can shine. Cook needs to let that message filter into his captaincy too. He's often accused of being poor tactically but essentially he doesn't need a grand plan - he just need to be a calm head to get the best from Stokes, Wood, Buttler and Lyth.
In Joe Root England have a player with the class to aspire to Steve Smith's batting crown - and the potential to be star man. He will be targeted like never before and - thanks to David Warner - already has a bit of spice on his Ashes menu.
In Gary Ballance and Moeen Ali, England do have two question marks. Both, however, have earned the chance to prove their critics wrong. Last summer's performances from this pair were superb, Ballance with a formidable batting average and Moeen taking wickets applenty against the supposed spin specialists of India.
It's certainly set for an intriguing contest. Confident, experienced and formidable favourites against a talented, developing side with home advantage. Australia probably should shade it but the signs are there that it could be a good contest.
It's also one of those all-too-rare occasions where test match cricket takes centre stage and a series is played out over five matches. Here's hoping for a cricketing feast that's even tastier than the Kiwi clashes that have whetted the appetite so nicely.
It's official now. The #Ashes is ON! #CmonAussie pic.twitter.com/dBLsCIGiJ2
— cricket.com.au (@CricketAus) July 7, 2015The Ashes may have been played a little too often in recent years due to a schedule that is harder to decipher than the Duckworth Lewis method, but that hasn't dampened the spirits ahead of this clash. In fact, a combination of a big change in personnel for England and a stunning test and one-day series with Australia's Antipodean neighbours, means this series feels surprisingly fresh.
2 captains, 1 Investec #Ashes Trophy & 1 little urn... It all starts tomorrow!! pic.twitter.com/wVgI09hZKa
— England Cricket (@englandcricket) July 7, 2015In many respects the tables have turned completely from 2013. Then England were the older and more settled side, buoyed by a series victory in Australia and a widely feared bowling lineup. Australia were regrouping under a new coach and were attempting to integrate newer players who had plied their trade in the more aggressive confines of the shorter form of the game.
Now, fast forward two years and England go into this series led by a new coach - an Aussie no less to add yet another subplot - and are trying to harness a new spirit from players with one-day experience. Australia's pace attack has established a fearful reputation and that, coupled with buckets of experience in the batting ranks, makes them clear favourites. It probably says a lot about the respective nations that Aussies have been queuing up to make bold predictions of a whitewash while Ian Bell, a veteran of six series, is happy to accept the role of underdog for the home team (which, it's worth noting, hasn't lost an Ashes in England since 2001).
Despite the fact that the Baggy Greens have the world's number one batsman in their ranks in Steve Smith, you do feel that the series rests on the way England's batsmen cope with the Australian attack.
The visitors arrive from Down Under with the most fearful pair of Mitchells since Grant and Phil from Eastenders in the shape of bowling duo Starc and Johnson. Johnson blew the batsmen away with sheer pace on his home soil in 2013/14 and will be hoping that his sheer reputation sends ripples of fear through the home dressing room. Even more worrying for England is the fact that Starc is possibly even better.
The aggression of Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler could meet their fire with a counter-attacking fire, but England will need to accept that there will be failures in taking such an approach. All concerned must hold their nerve and back such players to come good. The players themselves need to find the right tone, remembering that they are in a test and not a T20.
Before these champing-at-the-bit youngsters arrive at the crease though it's up to Captain Cook to steer his side through the early exchanges. He has shown promising signs so far in 2015 of a return to form and it's hard to imagine an England win without a significant contribution from the nation's record test run scorer.
While Cook needs to draw on all of his powers of concentration to set the tone with the bat, his fellow record breaker Jimmy Anderson will need to shine with the ball. Much is made of the 'English conditions' being tough to cope with. Anderson - in tandem with Stuart Broad - is vital to making this home advantage pay.
In a way that's the key to success for England. The old timers - Cook, Bell, Anderson and Broad - must set a solid platform from which the younger players can shine. Cook needs to let that message filter into his captaincy too. He's often accused of being poor tactically but essentially he doesn't need a grand plan - he just need to be a calm head to get the best from Stokes, Wood, Buttler and Lyth.
In Joe Root England have a player with the class to aspire to Steve Smith's batting crown - and the potential to be star man. He will be targeted like never before and - thanks to David Warner - already has a bit of spice on his Ashes menu.
1/2 Disappointing to have my character questioned- those who know me realise how ridiculous Warner's excuse for hitting me sounds...
— Joe Root (@joeroot05) July 4, 20152/2 ...but that's his choice to try and justify his actions. I'm just extremely excited about next week and getting back out there.
— Joe Root (@joeroot05) July 4, 2015In Gary Ballance and Moeen Ali, England do have two question marks. Both, however, have earned the chance to prove their critics wrong. Last summer's performances from this pair were superb, Ballance with a formidable batting average and Moeen taking wickets applenty against the supposed spin specialists of India.
It's certainly set for an intriguing contest. Confident, experienced and formidable favourites against a talented, developing side with home advantage. Australia probably should shade it but the signs are there that it could be a good contest.
It's also one of those all-too-rare occasions where test match cricket takes centre stage and a series is played out over five matches. Here's hoping for a cricketing feast that's even tastier than the Kiwi clashes that have whetted the appetite so nicely.
Monday 6 July 2015
Beware a policy dressed up as 'common sense'
We're being spoiled aren't we? Not content with the actual budget just a few weeks ago (it probably seems like longer) - George Osborne is giving his red box another outing for an emergency budget. The emergency being that he's not had chance to have his own way in the coalition, presumably.
All that means a political budget to set out the political agenda for the coming five years - with moves to come good on manifesto promises and to start to admit to where the cuts will come.
Yet amid the pre-budget excitement (if you can call it that) and the Labour leadership excitement (no, probably not) I couldn't help by getting frustrated at the fact that so many so many complex issues are reduced to overly simplistic debates under the cloak of common sense.
Take some examples of issues under debate at the moment.
On last week's BBC Question Time, health secretary Jeremy Hunt appeared open to the prospect of charging patients who miss their appointments. Fair enough, you might think. After all, these missed appointments waste valuable time that could be given to other patients.
Yet, when you think about it, it's not so simple. Which is probably why Hunt had the rug pulled from under him by 'Government sources' in the days to follow.
The problem is that, in order to charge people who missed appointments, you'd need to set up a bureaucratic system to administer the fines. You'd have to handle appeals and chase payments. You'd also have to acknowledge that some people miss appointments for very good reasons - public transport/traffic issues or ill health, for example.
Plus, I dislike the idea of putting a financial transaction at the heart of the health service. The issue here is that when, for example, the hospital writes to you to inform you that it needs to move your appointment at short notice - by which time you've already arranged cover at work, say - how long before the patient seeks financial recourse for their own inconvenience?
Just as with student tuition fees - making the debate about price transforms the patient/doctor relationship into one that, like student/tutor, becomes rooted in money and what you should expect from that money. While no-one appears to be suggesting charging for appointments yet, the value for an appointment would be clear from the level of the fines set out.
So an unwieldy system of fines that would cost money to administer, would likely 'catch out' people with legitimate excuses and would put a financial relationship into the heart of something that shouldn't be about money. Not such common sense now.
Far harder, but also more palatable, is a longer-term drive to make missing appointments socially unacceptable. Still, you worry that long term and hard work aren't as attractive.
That hits at the main problem about framing policy as a 'common sense idea'. It's a ploy to make sure that the opposition can't oppose you despite the fact that, beyond the rhetoric, your idea might not be all it's cracked up to be.
Take another example. English votes for English laws (the horribly named EVEL) is another catchy soundbite that sounds like good common sense politics. Why should the Scots have a say on English laws?
Yet, here we go again. How does this work in practice? If a backbencher proposes spending big money on quickening the pace of the establishment of academy schools, for example, that might have a cost implication on the budget as a whole and, as a result on the resources for Scotland. So, where do we draw the line on what constitutes an English-only issue? Having spent so much time and energy keeping the Scots in the union, might we be in danger of showing them the exit again?
And why stop there? Should MPs for cities in the north west of England have a say in what happens to me in Lincolnshire? Does our MP have a right to have a say on HS2, which comes nowhere near me?
It all sounds like something that is a thinly veiled excuse for one side or the other to use to reform the voting system in the favour. Especially since history from the last 15 years shows that this 'problem' has affected...well pretty much nothing. Barely any votes on laws since 2001 would have changed if Scottish MPs were taken out of the equation. Albeit, granted, that has been with a slightly less feisty bunch of MPs from north of the border but it shows that Scottish representatives have not, up until now, skewed the course of events.
Far better to solve the issue of 'nodding dog' MPs who blindly follow the party line regardless of what their constituents think. But, as with GPs, this is probably harder to achieve.
On a similar note, you often hear people talk of the need to 'means test' benefits to pensioners, namely things such as the free television licence, winter fuel payments, bus pass etc. Why, the argument goes, does a millionaire pensioner need any of the above?
That again, sounds sensible. However, as with the GP example it requires red tape to administer and, importantly like 'EVEL' it creates a wider problem.
The whole system of taxation in this country works by everyone paying in, regardless of what they 'take out' in services used. Small symbolic gestures such as these show that everyone gets something out of their relationship with the state.
If we start to question someone's worthiness of getting 'something back' then we open up the question of whether that person feels the need to chip in in the first place. We also begin to question, as a society, our wider relationship with the state. Why must I, as a non-smoker, contribute to services that assist those wishing to quit smoking? Why do my taxes need to go to pay for infrastructure projects in parts of the country that I do not visit?
The principle that everyone pays in and everyone gets something back for their contribution should not be undermined so easily.
It is, of course, easy to be cynical about politics and politicians. But the point remains that saying something that sounds like 'common sense' is not the same as carrying out a well thought-out plan. Poor legislation can be enacted for the right reasons. But it pays to be wary of anyone who offers a simple, black and white answer to any issue - be it a Labour leadership contender, a Tory celebrating their first proper budget or one of those lesser-spotted Lib Dems.
All that means a political budget to set out the political agenda for the coming five years - with moves to come good on manifesto promises and to start to admit to where the cuts will come.
Yet amid the pre-budget excitement (if you can call it that) and the Labour leadership excitement (no, probably not) I couldn't help by getting frustrated at the fact that so many so many complex issues are reduced to overly simplistic debates under the cloak of common sense.
Take some examples of issues under debate at the moment.
On last week's BBC Question Time, health secretary Jeremy Hunt appeared open to the prospect of charging patients who miss their appointments. Fair enough, you might think. After all, these missed appointments waste valuable time that could be given to other patients.
Yet, when you think about it, it's not so simple. Which is probably why Hunt had the rug pulled from under him by 'Government sources' in the days to follow.
The problem is that, in order to charge people who missed appointments, you'd need to set up a bureaucratic system to administer the fines. You'd have to handle appeals and chase payments. You'd also have to acknowledge that some people miss appointments for very good reasons - public transport/traffic issues or ill health, for example.
Plus, I dislike the idea of putting a financial transaction at the heart of the health service. The issue here is that when, for example, the hospital writes to you to inform you that it needs to move your appointment at short notice - by which time you've already arranged cover at work, say - how long before the patient seeks financial recourse for their own inconvenience?
Just as with student tuition fees - making the debate about price transforms the patient/doctor relationship into one that, like student/tutor, becomes rooted in money and what you should expect from that money. While no-one appears to be suggesting charging for appointments yet, the value for an appointment would be clear from the level of the fines set out.
So an unwieldy system of fines that would cost money to administer, would likely 'catch out' people with legitimate excuses and would put a financial relationship into the heart of something that shouldn't be about money. Not such common sense now.
Far harder, but also more palatable, is a longer-term drive to make missing appointments socially unacceptable. Still, you worry that long term and hard work aren't as attractive.
That hits at the main problem about framing policy as a 'common sense idea'. It's a ploy to make sure that the opposition can't oppose you despite the fact that, beyond the rhetoric, your idea might not be all it's cracked up to be.
Take another example. English votes for English laws (the horribly named EVEL) is another catchy soundbite that sounds like good common sense politics. Why should the Scots have a say on English laws?
Yet, here we go again. How does this work in practice? If a backbencher proposes spending big money on quickening the pace of the establishment of academy schools, for example, that might have a cost implication on the budget as a whole and, as a result on the resources for Scotland. So, where do we draw the line on what constitutes an English-only issue? Having spent so much time and energy keeping the Scots in the union, might we be in danger of showing them the exit again?
And why stop there? Should MPs for cities in the north west of England have a say in what happens to me in Lincolnshire? Does our MP have a right to have a say on HS2, which comes nowhere near me?
It all sounds like something that is a thinly veiled excuse for one side or the other to use to reform the voting system in the favour. Especially since history from the last 15 years shows that this 'problem' has affected...well pretty much nothing. Barely any votes on laws since 2001 would have changed if Scottish MPs were taken out of the equation. Albeit, granted, that has been with a slightly less feisty bunch of MPs from north of the border but it shows that Scottish representatives have not, up until now, skewed the course of events.
Far better to solve the issue of 'nodding dog' MPs who blindly follow the party line regardless of what their constituents think. But, as with GPs, this is probably harder to achieve.
On a similar note, you often hear people talk of the need to 'means test' benefits to pensioners, namely things such as the free television licence, winter fuel payments, bus pass etc. Why, the argument goes, does a millionaire pensioner need any of the above?
That again, sounds sensible. However, as with the GP example it requires red tape to administer and, importantly like 'EVEL' it creates a wider problem.
The whole system of taxation in this country works by everyone paying in, regardless of what they 'take out' in services used. Small symbolic gestures such as these show that everyone gets something out of their relationship with the state.
If we start to question someone's worthiness of getting 'something back' then we open up the question of whether that person feels the need to chip in in the first place. We also begin to question, as a society, our wider relationship with the state. Why must I, as a non-smoker, contribute to services that assist those wishing to quit smoking? Why do my taxes need to go to pay for infrastructure projects in parts of the country that I do not visit?
The principle that everyone pays in and everyone gets something back for their contribution should not be undermined so easily.
It is, of course, easy to be cynical about politics and politicians. But the point remains that saying something that sounds like 'common sense' is not the same as carrying out a well thought-out plan. Poor legislation can be enacted for the right reasons. But it pays to be wary of anyone who offers a simple, black and white answer to any issue - be it a Labour leadership contender, a Tory celebrating their first proper budget or one of those lesser-spotted Lib Dems.
Sunday 28 June 2015
Lessons from cricket for English football after under-21s exit
When it comes to football, what do Spain, Holland and France all have in common? Better than England a battle hardened follower of the Three Lions might say...
Yet, actually, none of these international powerhouses even made it to the under-21 European football championships. It's a little unfair that England's young stars have been widely criticised for 'flopping' at a tournament that that trio weren't good enough to make.
Today Germany crashed out with a 5-0 defeat against a Portugal side that beat England 1-0. Presumably the same mob that came out with the tired old cliches about England's side will be hammering the heirs to the world champions' shirts now too?
The worst thing about the England national team is not the quality of the football, it's the ridiculousness of the reactions to it. Win a couple of games and we're tournament winners in waiting. Lose one and everyone should be sacked, the Premier League must be reformed and the players are roundly pilloried.
When it comes to the under-21s the reaction is even more tiresome. Yes, we need to get more of our young talent into Premier League starting XIs and yes we should pick our best available players in the age category.
But these tiresome circular debates do little good for the players who are actually there. Spending time moaning about the lack of Jack Wilshere or Ross Barkley will do little to instil confidence in their replacements.
Likewise there is little recognition that only 8 teams can make this tournament. Losing in the group stages of the under 21 Euros is hardly comparable to the adult sides. Our track record of reaching these events is excellent and no-one has an entitlement to win.
I also feel we've lost track of what the point of the under-21s is. Yes tournaments, results and competitions are important - but the ultimate goal is to groom the next generation. The only way to judge how much of a 'flop' or not Southgate's side is is to look back on this lineup and see how many make it as full internationals.
Southgate himself has gone from England senior manager in waiting to under fire, a trajectory that befell his predecessor. The side themselves are now being labelled 'mediocre' on the radio by the likes of Danny Mills and Joey Barton - rent-a-quote players who will know a thing or three about mediocrity.
In saying this I do think there is a need to address the 'stage fright' our youngsters encounter on such occasions (nothwithstanding selection and injuries). Yet the reaction to this tournament is part of the problem.
I can't help thinking that some lessons could be learned from England's one day cricket team. Battered and bruised from a pathetic World Cup showing (and you thought the u21s performance was bad) the team has turned its fortunes around by letting its young talent loose.
The biggest and most refreshing change in 50-over cricket for England has been to remove the fear of failure. Players are sent out to attack, express themselves and be aggressive.
It's tempting to say that this is how the footballing young guns should play. It's certainly too simplistic to say 'all out attack' is the way forward - but the aggression and freedom to express themselves is key.
Yet, when it comes to the cricketing revolution this summer, patience has also been key to the success. Fans and media have embraced the new regime and accepted that defeats and set backs are inevitable when a team sets out to play a riskier but more exciting way.
Are we ready to accept that our young up and coming footballers will make mistakes and lose games? Until we are the straightjacket will be on and the fear of failure will inhibit the way our young stars go about their business.
I can't help thinking that that mentality - over and above team selection, formations and managers etc, - is important to encourage and nurture our under-21s. If we're to do that - and match England's exciting cricketing turnaround on the cricket field - the long-term benefit for the senior level could be telling.
That means that, as the public, we too must play our part and stop simply trotting out criticism from the sidelines. This negativity is part of the problem.
Yet, actually, none of these international powerhouses even made it to the under-21 European football championships. It's a little unfair that England's young stars have been widely criticised for 'flopping' at a tournament that that trio weren't good enough to make.
Today Germany crashed out with a 5-0 defeat against a Portugal side that beat England 1-0. Presumably the same mob that came out with the tired old cliches about England's side will be hammering the heirs to the world champions' shirts now too?
The worst thing about the England national team is not the quality of the football, it's the ridiculousness of the reactions to it. Win a couple of games and we're tournament winners in waiting. Lose one and everyone should be sacked, the Premier League must be reformed and the players are roundly pilloried.
When it comes to the under-21s the reaction is even more tiresome. Yes, we need to get more of our young talent into Premier League starting XIs and yes we should pick our best available players in the age category.
But these tiresome circular debates do little good for the players who are actually there. Spending time moaning about the lack of Jack Wilshere or Ross Barkley will do little to instil confidence in their replacements.
Likewise there is little recognition that only 8 teams can make this tournament. Losing in the group stages of the under 21 Euros is hardly comparable to the adult sides. Our track record of reaching these events is excellent and no-one has an entitlement to win.
I also feel we've lost track of what the point of the under-21s is. Yes tournaments, results and competitions are important - but the ultimate goal is to groom the next generation. The only way to judge how much of a 'flop' or not Southgate's side is is to look back on this lineup and see how many make it as full internationals.
Southgate himself has gone from England senior manager in waiting to under fire, a trajectory that befell his predecessor. The side themselves are now being labelled 'mediocre' on the radio by the likes of Danny Mills and Joey Barton - rent-a-quote players who will know a thing or three about mediocrity.
In saying this I do think there is a need to address the 'stage fright' our youngsters encounter on such occasions (nothwithstanding selection and injuries). Yet the reaction to this tournament is part of the problem.
I can't help thinking that some lessons could be learned from England's one day cricket team. Battered and bruised from a pathetic World Cup showing (and you thought the u21s performance was bad) the team has turned its fortunes around by letting its young talent loose.
The biggest and most refreshing change in 50-over cricket for England has been to remove the fear of failure. Players are sent out to attack, express themselves and be aggressive.
It's tempting to say that this is how the footballing young guns should play. It's certainly too simplistic to say 'all out attack' is the way forward - but the aggression and freedom to express themselves is key.
Yet, when it comes to the cricketing revolution this summer, patience has also been key to the success. Fans and media have embraced the new regime and accepted that defeats and set backs are inevitable when a team sets out to play a riskier but more exciting way.
Are we ready to accept that our young up and coming footballers will make mistakes and lose games? Until we are the straightjacket will be on and the fear of failure will inhibit the way our young stars go about their business.
I can't help thinking that that mentality - over and above team selection, formations and managers etc, - is important to encourage and nurture our under-21s. If we're to do that - and match England's exciting cricketing turnaround on the cricket field - the long-term benefit for the senior level could be telling.
That means that, as the public, we too must play our part and stop simply trotting out criticism from the sidelines. This negativity is part of the problem.
Tuesday 9 June 2015
Exciting start for England's 'new era'
England's cricketers have been playing a different version of the one day game to the rest of the world for many years - a slower, duller and less successful one at that. Today it would be an understatement to say the penny finally seemed to have dropped.
At a humbling World Cup the side continued to go through the motions while exciting attacking line ups fielded by rival side put them well and truly to shame. We were happy to 'get 250 on the board' while most teams wanted to have reached that total with 10 or more overs left. Our batting was timid and our all round game hampered by poor plans based on out-of-date statistics.
The talk after the tournament - where we've had a welcome switch to red ball cricket - was of the need for a 'new era'. Long-term followers will have listened that and thought 'we've heard that one before'. It's easy to talk of change - no-one in sport ever talks of carrying on losing - but it's harder to match those words with actions.
The signs were promising as soon as the squad was selected - and there was a real will to see the likes of Hales, Roy and Rashid let loose at last alongside a smattering of other fresh names. The expectation was that this bunch could give the beaten World Cup finallists of New Zealand a decent game - and learn from them in the process.
It wouldn't be England if everything went smoothly and the loss of Jason Roy from the first ball brought the optimists crashing down to earth straight away.
But not to worry. The excellent Joe Root - sure to be England's star performer in all formats for years to come - swiftly went about keeping the faith of the watching public. With sumptuous stroke play and powerful hitting he rebuilt the innings with the help of captain Eoin Morgan.
Root is so good that he often gets touted as a possible captain but I'm more than happy that he continues without that particular crown of thorns for the time being. Morgan's knock - and later captaincy in the field - proved his worth at the helm. You always felt the Irishman would've been happier with a freer, more instinctive game plan anyway and so it proved.
But then came the setbacks. Wickets fell and at 202-6 the timid old England of the World Cup would've folded. Not so today. The brilliant Buttler and fearless Rashid simply took up the charge and powered Morgan's men on and on. Buttler's brute force, timing and invention was breathtaking and Rashid's bucaneering knock shouldn't be understimated either, helping to drive his partner on.
The icing on the cake came in some style courtesy of Liam Plunkett, who came in and smashed his first two balls for six apiece and saw the innings over the 400 mark.
The records tumbled - but the symbolism was even more important. We can mix it with the big boys after all.
New Zealand approached their impossible chase with admirable bravery. McCullum briefly threatened to inflict pain on Steven Finn but, buoyed by the aggression of the batsmen, the tall fast bowler shrugged off a couple of hefty blows, held his nerve and sent the Kiwis' talisman packing to begin a haul of 4-35.
The highlight of the bowling innings, though, came from Adil Rashid. The Yorkshire leg spinner has been talked about for so long and justified the faith to at last give him a go. He went through his full repertoire of deliveries and helped to tame the middle order with a fantastic 4-55. There's a real joy in watching a leg spinner in full flow and it was a delight to see this lesser-spotted art performed in and England shirt to such effect.
And, with that, England polished off New Zealand for 198, winning by a massive 212 run margin. At the World Cup 212 alone looked a struggle.
The important thing is not to get carried away. There will be days when batsman fail - indeed Roy and Billings didn't shine this time - and others when Rashid receives some 'treatment'. The magnificent manner of the victory in this match and the goodwill it will rightly earn deserves to secure patience from selectors and supporters. We won't get 400 every time but we have shown that aggression and positivity can pay off. Trevor Bayliss can simply burn a few copies of this performance and reach for his pipe and slippers for now. More of the same please...
At a humbling World Cup the side continued to go through the motions while exciting attacking line ups fielded by rival side put them well and truly to shame. We were happy to 'get 250 on the board' while most teams wanted to have reached that total with 10 or more overs left. Our batting was timid and our all round game hampered by poor plans based on out-of-date statistics.
The talk after the tournament - where we've had a welcome switch to red ball cricket - was of the need for a 'new era'. Long-term followers will have listened that and thought 'we've heard that one before'. It's easy to talk of change - no-one in sport ever talks of carrying on losing - but it's harder to match those words with actions.
The signs were promising as soon as the squad was selected - and there was a real will to see the likes of Hales, Roy and Rashid let loose at last alongside a smattering of other fresh names. The expectation was that this bunch could give the beaten World Cup finallists of New Zealand a decent game - and learn from them in the process.
It wouldn't be England if everything went smoothly and the loss of Jason Roy from the first ball brought the optimists crashing down to earth straight away.
But not to worry. The excellent Joe Root - sure to be England's star performer in all formats for years to come - swiftly went about keeping the faith of the watching public. With sumptuous stroke play and powerful hitting he rebuilt the innings with the help of captain Eoin Morgan.
Root is so good that he often gets touted as a possible captain but I'm more than happy that he continues without that particular crown of thorns for the time being. Morgan's knock - and later captaincy in the field - proved his worth at the helm. You always felt the Irishman would've been happier with a freer, more instinctive game plan anyway and so it proved.
But then came the setbacks. Wickets fell and at 202-6 the timid old England of the World Cup would've folded. Not so today. The brilliant Buttler and fearless Rashid simply took up the charge and powered Morgan's men on and on. Buttler's brute force, timing and invention was breathtaking and Rashid's bucaneering knock shouldn't be understimated either, helping to drive his partner on.
The icing on the cake came in some style courtesy of Liam Plunkett, who came in and smashed his first two balls for six apiece and saw the innings over the 400 mark.
The records tumbled - but the symbolism was even more important. We can mix it with the big boys after all.
New Zealand approached their impossible chase with admirable bravery. McCullum briefly threatened to inflict pain on Steven Finn but, buoyed by the aggression of the batsmen, the tall fast bowler shrugged off a couple of hefty blows, held his nerve and sent the Kiwis' talisman packing to begin a haul of 4-35.
The highlight of the bowling innings, though, came from Adil Rashid. The Yorkshire leg spinner has been talked about for so long and justified the faith to at last give him a go. He went through his full repertoire of deliveries and helped to tame the middle order with a fantastic 4-55. There's a real joy in watching a leg spinner in full flow and it was a delight to see this lesser-spotted art performed in and England shirt to such effect.
And, with that, England polished off New Zealand for 198, winning by a massive 212 run margin. At the World Cup 212 alone looked a struggle.
The important thing is not to get carried away. There will be days when batsman fail - indeed Roy and Billings didn't shine this time - and others when Rashid receives some 'treatment'. The magnificent manner of the victory in this match and the goodwill it will rightly earn deserves to secure patience from selectors and supporters. We won't get 400 every time but we have shown that aggression and positivity can pay off. Trevor Bayliss can simply burn a few copies of this performance and reach for his pipe and slippers for now. More of the same please...
Friday 5 June 2015
Richard III is Leicester's crowning glory
Having lived in Leicester for several months while studying to be a journalist - and having returned several times since to see friends or for shopping - one thing jumped out as different when heading there last weekend.
Before I'd even reached the city, the 'Richard III' effect was clear from the road signs - now updated to guide those on a royal pilgrimage.
And, as strong as the pull of a nostalgic trip to Firebug or other old drinking haunts was, it was an appointment withe the king that took me back to Leicester last Saturday.
The road signs aren't the end. Throughout the city proud flags and signs - and shops 'cashing in' of course - have popped up, embracing the 'car park king' as their own.
And why shouldn't they? As a history graduate I was shocked and fascinated in equal measure by the discovery of the remains of the last Plantagenet monarch. The journalist in me was equally enticed by the sheer absurdity of the fact he was buried under a council car park. It's a wonderful story and a visit to the city was long overdue.
The visitor centre is located opposite the Cathedral - home, after much debate, to Richard's remains - and sits on the site of the discovery itself.
The centre - an old school building partly on the site of the old Grey Friars Church - houses an exhibition on two floors. The ground floor tells the tale of Richard's life. The path Richard took from birth to throne to Bosworth battle field is complex and it would be easy to bamboozle a visitor with the twists and turns of this story. The centre skilfully avoids that - combining an OK introductory video replete with actors explaining the timeline with a walkthrough of his short reign as King of England.
The video does a fair job but the displays are much better. Short, snappy, text keeps this engaging - introducing the 'Princes in the Tower' debate alongside the lesser known aspects of Richard's reign. It's hard to consider just how great a reformer Richard may have been from such a short tenure - but the legislation introduced here shows that the period is worth closer scrutiny for someone, like me, for whom this is not their specialist period.
Princes, legislation and death in battle all makes for a pretty full menu downstairs. Some people may feel they'd have liked to see more meat on such fleshy topics but that's what the books in the shop are for. I think it was all handled pretty well considering this is not the sole focus of the centre.
That's apparent upstairs, where the story of the discovery of Richard's remains is told. Quite whether we need to see the exact hi-vis council vest, dig permit paperwork, boots and digger head used on the fateful day is a matter for debate but you can forgive a bit of over-excitement given the magnitude of the project and you certainly can't argue all bases aren't covered.
The story of the dig is illuminated nicely with video clips and cuttings - and is followed by handy interactive displays on the methods used to verify that the remains were, in fact, Richard's. Alongside this scientific and factual part of the display was a particularly enjoyable section on the depictions of Richard in fiction throughout history - and how some historians have challenged this over time.
Whether you're a fully paid up Ricardian or not, the passionate people behind the project to unearth the king have earned their right to open up the debate on this most fascinating figure from our history.
After the exhibition there's a chance to walk across a glass floor over the exact spot in which the now-famous find occurred. It shows how tantalisingly close to the surface he was lying all along.
It's well worth then making the short trip across the road to the Cathedral - where the king is finally buried in a more befitting manner.
At £7.95 some may argue the exhibition was a tad on the expensive side. It's cheaper than the visiting exhibitions that are held in the British Museum, for example, though and - while it probably takes less time to digest - was a very different type of attraction.
It's not so much about exhibits and artefacts and bringing history to life through objects. Instead it's about an encapsulating story and one that shows that the events of the past are never a closed book. 1485 may be a long time ago but here we are, in 2015, still debating the mystery of 'the Princes' and the merits of the last English king to die in battle.
The centre has certainly inspired me to want to read on. It's also encouraging to see Leicester embrace this history and celebrate the past with such enthusiasm. My home city of Nottingham could probably learn a thing or to about how a prosperous and vibrant present/future can be helped with a rich past.
I'll have to return to those pubs next time...
Before I'd even reached the city, the 'Richard III' effect was clear from the road signs - now updated to guide those on a royal pilgrimage.
And, as strong as the pull of a nostalgic trip to Firebug or other old drinking haunts was, it was an appointment withe the king that took me back to Leicester last Saturday.
The road signs aren't the end. Throughout the city proud flags and signs - and shops 'cashing in' of course - have popped up, embracing the 'car park king' as their own.
And why shouldn't they? As a history graduate I was shocked and fascinated in equal measure by the discovery of the remains of the last Plantagenet monarch. The journalist in me was equally enticed by the sheer absurdity of the fact he was buried under a council car park. It's a wonderful story and a visit to the city was long overdue.
The visitor centre is located opposite the Cathedral - home, after much debate, to Richard's remains - and sits on the site of the discovery itself.
The centre - an old school building partly on the site of the old Grey Friars Church - houses an exhibition on two floors. The ground floor tells the tale of Richard's life. The path Richard took from birth to throne to Bosworth battle field is complex and it would be easy to bamboozle a visitor with the twists and turns of this story. The centre skilfully avoids that - combining an OK introductory video replete with actors explaining the timeline with a walkthrough of his short reign as King of England.
The video does a fair job but the displays are much better. Short, snappy, text keeps this engaging - introducing the 'Princes in the Tower' debate alongside the lesser known aspects of Richard's reign. It's hard to consider just how great a reformer Richard may have been from such a short tenure - but the legislation introduced here shows that the period is worth closer scrutiny for someone, like me, for whom this is not their specialist period.
Princes, legislation and death in battle all makes for a pretty full menu downstairs. Some people may feel they'd have liked to see more meat on such fleshy topics but that's what the books in the shop are for. I think it was all handled pretty well considering this is not the sole focus of the centre.
That's apparent upstairs, where the story of the discovery of Richard's remains is told. Quite whether we need to see the exact hi-vis council vest, dig permit paperwork, boots and digger head used on the fateful day is a matter for debate but you can forgive a bit of over-excitement given the magnitude of the project and you certainly can't argue all bases aren't covered.
The story of the dig is illuminated nicely with video clips and cuttings - and is followed by handy interactive displays on the methods used to verify that the remains were, in fact, Richard's. Alongside this scientific and factual part of the display was a particularly enjoyable section on the depictions of Richard in fiction throughout history - and how some historians have challenged this over time.
Whether you're a fully paid up Ricardian or not, the passionate people behind the project to unearth the king have earned their right to open up the debate on this most fascinating figure from our history.
After the exhibition there's a chance to walk across a glass floor over the exact spot in which the now-famous find occurred. It shows how tantalisingly close to the surface he was lying all along.
It's well worth then making the short trip across the road to the Cathedral - where the king is finally buried in a more befitting manner.
At £7.95 some may argue the exhibition was a tad on the expensive side. It's cheaper than the visiting exhibitions that are held in the British Museum, for example, though and - while it probably takes less time to digest - was a very different type of attraction.
It's not so much about exhibits and artefacts and bringing history to life through objects. Instead it's about an encapsulating story and one that shows that the events of the past are never a closed book. 1485 may be a long time ago but here we are, in 2015, still debating the mystery of 'the Princes' and the merits of the last English king to die in battle.
The centre has certainly inspired me to want to read on. It's also encouraging to see Leicester embrace this history and celebrate the past with such enthusiasm. My home city of Nottingham could probably learn a thing or to about how a prosperous and vibrant present/future can be helped with a rich past.
I'll have to return to those pubs next time...
Tuesday 26 May 2015
Peter Kay's Car Share was a comedy gem
Peter Kay certainly returned to the nation's screens in style with Car Share, a hugely enjoyable six-part show which was easily the best new comedy I'd enjoyed since The Thick Of It.
The northern funnyman's latest vehicle (!) was a co-creation with Paul Coleman, who he had worked with on Max and Paddy's Road to Nowhere and Britain's Got the Pop Factor.
I've always been a fan of Kay's work. Phoenix Nights was a wonderful sitcom and anyone who has had the 'pleasure' of a brush with clubland in their life will know it's superbly well observed. His stand up, too, was genuinely funny if sadly over-quoted and imitated by people who were a lot less funny.
Still, if being working class or northern (to at least some degree) helped you laugh hardest at his previous work, Car Share - thanks to Coleman - hit at a neat idea with an even wider appeal.
Kay's John Coleman and Sian Gibson's Kayleigh Kitson (also credited as a co-writer along with Tim Reid) were thrust together in a company car share scheme and we get to enjoy their journeys to and from work. Both characters are richly fleshed out in a way that makes them effortlessly easy to relate to.
Either alone or with a friend or partner, we've all enjoyed the unique laughs and frustrations to be had when sharing a vehicle. The genius of this show was to make the radio the 'third person' in the car as we see the pair guess the 'golden hour', sing along to the sort of songs that are spot on for the type of commercial station invented by the writers and 'talk back' at the adverts. Only Alan Partridge has used the radio to such comic effect.
Kay getting 'caught' belting out 'You're The Voice', the banality of management-speak and the modern amusement of the 'Bluetooth phone call' were just three of the many 'we've all been there' moments to savour. There were also set piece moments such as Gibson's 'dogging' misunderstanding that were choke-on-your-cup-of-tea funny.
Added into the mix is just the right amount of 'will they, won't they' romance for the two main characters - something that was never resolved in a way that satisfyingly left us all wanting more.
Subtly good acting, astute observations and fantastic gags made this a superb success and, if the ratings were anything to go by, the BBC would be barmy not to go back begging for more. Such rare comedy gems should be treasured
Sunday 17 May 2015
A welcome return to Trent Bridge
You can't beat a spot of cricket at Trent Bridge, and the purest way to get a fix is with a day of county championship cricket. Yes, there's not the pyrotechnics of the Twenty20 or the intensity of a Test Match - both enjoyable in their own right - but there's a real joy to be had from days such as today.
It's perhaps easy to take the venue for granted but we shouldn't. This ever-evolving ground - with all singing and dancing scoreboard screens and new stands - is a world class setting and regularly ranked among the top of its kind by people within the game. It pays not to forget how lucky we are to have that in reach.
A county championship match offers the perfect chance to soak in the surrounds and enjoy a slice of sporting action in a relaxing atmosphere. The action unfolds intriguingly before you - but at the sort of pace that leaves room to dip in and out a little. In fact I often find it's a great chance to catch up with a friend for a chinwag and today was also a good chance for that - a perfect mix of social and sporting pleasures. Oh and £15 for seven and a half hours? Not bad at all.
So, what of the action? Well, the combination of the cloud cover and green-looking wicket meant Nottinghamshire captain Chris Read was happy to put the visitors from Somerset into bat. It seemed to be a smart move when, before I'd even taken my seat, Vernon Philander removed ex-England opener Marcus Trescothick.
The South African test star has struggled to settle since joining the county but really got his teeth into the action today, with tight probing bowling that maybe deserved even more success than was shown by his final figures of 4-56. Luke Wood ably assisted Philander but Jake Ball and Harry Gurney struggled to keep the pressure on the visitors and it looked like Somerset would head to lunch having seen off the worst of the early morning pressure.
Then up stepped Steven Mullaney. He relished the conditions and made a breakthrough by beating Johann Myburgh for length, just when a half century was in his grasp. His partner James Hildreth then fell to Philander - the third of seven batsmen clean bowled during the day - as the game turned. The icing on the cake for the home side was provided when Tom Cooper came and went - just like that! - for a five-ball one, another victim of Mullaney. 101-5 made it Notts' morning.
After a nice lunch time pint - the Belhaven Golden Bay in the Pavilion - I expected (and hoped) Chris Read's men might turn the screw and limit the visitors to at least below 250, but it wasn't to be.
Some excellent aggressive hitting from Peter Trego (41) and that perennial fly in the ointment James Allenby (64) wrestled control back for Somerset, their efforts taking them to 241-8 before James Overton strode to the crease and stole the show.
The tall number 10 powered his way to the sort of quick scoring innings that wouldn't have been amiss in a Twenty20, with 11 4s in an impressive 31-ball 55. It was only when Gurney finally bowled full and straight that his damaging knock came to an end after tea. Still, when Luke Wood smashed Tim Groenewald's stumps to finish the innings off, Somerset would surely have been delighted with their total of 312.
Notts then faced a tricky 24 overs before the end of the day. Steven Mullaney seemed to ride his luck a little and, just when he was starting to settle, fell to a slightly harsh looking lbw decision. Debutant Greg Smith then added just 8 before himself falling lbw to a decision that appeared more clear cut.
Then, with two Taylors at the crease, it was a case of toughing it out against some tight bowling from Trego (8-4-17-0) and Groenewald (9-4-16-1). While the early overs gave a few too many 'leave-able' balls to the batsmen, this pair had the bit between their teeth by the end - vociferously appealing a couple of close lbw shouts against Brendan Taylor. As the spectators shivered in increasingly cool conditions and the floodlights were called upon to lift the gloom, both Taylors just about clung on, Brendan ending on 11 off 73 balls.
And that was that. It's probably curious to fans of other sports to leave a day's action with nothing decided but seeing the ultimate result isn't necessary to enjoy the cricket. If the weather forecast is to be believed then it may be a struggle to get a result in this game in the next three days but that didn't matter today. Good cricket, good company and a great setting all made for an enjoyable day. More people ought to learn to love the appeal of this gem of the British summer.
It's perhaps easy to take the venue for granted but we shouldn't. This ever-evolving ground - with all singing and dancing scoreboard screens and new stands - is a world class setting and regularly ranked among the top of its kind by people within the game. It pays not to forget how lucky we are to have that in reach.
A county championship match offers the perfect chance to soak in the surrounds and enjoy a slice of sporting action in a relaxing atmosphere. The action unfolds intriguingly before you - but at the sort of pace that leaves room to dip in and out a little. In fact I often find it's a great chance to catch up with a friend for a chinwag and today was also a good chance for that - a perfect mix of social and sporting pleasures. Oh and £15 for seven and a half hours? Not bad at all.
So, what of the action? Well, the combination of the cloud cover and green-looking wicket meant Nottinghamshire captain Chris Read was happy to put the visitors from Somerset into bat. It seemed to be a smart move when, before I'd even taken my seat, Vernon Philander removed ex-England opener Marcus Trescothick.
The South African test star has struggled to settle since joining the county but really got his teeth into the action today, with tight probing bowling that maybe deserved even more success than was shown by his final figures of 4-56. Luke Wood ably assisted Philander but Jake Ball and Harry Gurney struggled to keep the pressure on the visitors and it looked like Somerset would head to lunch having seen off the worst of the early morning pressure.
Then up stepped Steven Mullaney. He relished the conditions and made a breakthrough by beating Johann Myburgh for length, just when a half century was in his grasp. His partner James Hildreth then fell to Philander - the third of seven batsmen clean bowled during the day - as the game turned. The icing on the cake for the home side was provided when Tom Cooper came and went - just like that! - for a five-ball one, another victim of Mullaney. 101-5 made it Notts' morning.
After a nice lunch time pint - the Belhaven Golden Bay in the Pavilion - I expected (and hoped) Chris Read's men might turn the screw and limit the visitors to at least below 250, but it wasn't to be.
Some excellent aggressive hitting from Peter Trego (41) and that perennial fly in the ointment James Allenby (64) wrestled control back for Somerset, their efforts taking them to 241-8 before James Overton strode to the crease and stole the show.
The tall number 10 powered his way to the sort of quick scoring innings that wouldn't have been amiss in a Twenty20, with 11 4s in an impressive 31-ball 55. It was only when Gurney finally bowled full and straight that his damaging knock came to an end after tea. Still, when Luke Wood smashed Tim Groenewald's stumps to finish the innings off, Somerset would surely have been delighted with their total of 312.
Notts then faced a tricky 24 overs before the end of the day. Steven Mullaney seemed to ride his luck a little and, just when he was starting to settle, fell to a slightly harsh looking lbw decision. Debutant Greg Smith then added just 8 before himself falling lbw to a decision that appeared more clear cut.
Then, with two Taylors at the crease, it was a case of toughing it out against some tight bowling from Trego (8-4-17-0) and Groenewald (9-4-16-1). While the early overs gave a few too many 'leave-able' balls to the batsmen, this pair had the bit between their teeth by the end - vociferously appealing a couple of close lbw shouts against Brendan Taylor. As the spectators shivered in increasingly cool conditions and the floodlights were called upon to lift the gloom, both Taylors just about clung on, Brendan ending on 11 off 73 balls.
And that was that. It's probably curious to fans of other sports to leave a day's action with nothing decided but seeing the ultimate result isn't necessary to enjoy the cricket. If the weather forecast is to be believed then it may be a struggle to get a result in this game in the next three days but that didn't matter today. Good cricket, good company and a great setting all made for an enjoyable day. More people ought to learn to love the appeal of this gem of the British summer.
Monday 11 May 2015
Sir Harry shone in Spooks' big screen outing
In some respects Spooks is a pretty odd choice to get the 'big screen treatment'. Don't get me wrong, I loved the TV show. It's just that I always imagined that for a series to make the transition from the smaller screen it'd need to contain most of the elements - and characters - that make it a popular programme.
Yet Spooks ended in 2011 so doesn't have a current 'following' and has always prided itself on being a show that bumps off its big name stars in a regular and ruthless fashion ever since 'that moment' with the chip fryer in series one.
In fact 'ruthless' is a pretty accurate picture of where we were at when the show ended - with the much loved stalwart Ruth Evershed meeting her demise to break the heart of Sir Harry Pearce.
So, having been taken off television and without a band of established characters to explore further, why make a film? Still, bizarre and illogical as the timing might have been, Spooks: The Greater Good worked.
Yes, this was just, in essence, an extended TV episode and, yes, it might've meant less if you hadn't got a deep affinity for Sir Harry's character, but this was a film that captured what was greart about the show at its height. Those strengths being good, pacy character-driven storytelling, regular deaths of big name stars to keep you on your toes and truck loads of tension.
If anything, the lack of too many established characters probably helped make this a film that could be enjoyed by someone with no knowledge of the TV programme. It also left open a berth for a main star which was ably filled by Kit Harington. The Game of Thrones actor brought a necessary wider appeal to the film and filled the posters in a way that Peter Firth might have struggled to do.
Harington and Firth hit it off pretty well as a duo too, both conveying characters with a rich, dark past that added to their mystique. Harington provided the action and Firth, playing a rogue, wrongly-accused Pearce, provided subterfuge and bastardry (with a splash of humanity) that makes his one of my all-time favourite TV characters. Firth's performance ensured the many layers he built up over years on TV were brought out before the cinema audience. He surely deserves another outing?
It all looked great on the screen with the odd explosion thrown in to keep the pace up but, as ever with Spooks, this was more about the substance than the style. It doesn't try to take on Bourne and Bond, but nor should it. There's more than one way to skin a spy story and this was no worse for not having more chase sequences or pyrotechnics.
Elyes Gabel played a believable and not-one-dimensional Adam Qasim, the dangerous on-the-run terrorist who escapes from the clutches of MI5 to set up the plot. Tim McInnerny's Oliver Mace perhaps strayed a little too into the stereotypical bracket, as did David Harewood's Warrender, while Jennifer Ehle had a guessable-but-still-enjoyable ending.
Still a few poorly fleshed out characters aside (more than made up for in my book by the return of Malcolm) this was a strong return for Spooks. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, comes next for Sir Harry and co. More along these lines would certainly be for the 'greater good'...
Yet Spooks ended in 2011 so doesn't have a current 'following' and has always prided itself on being a show that bumps off its big name stars in a regular and ruthless fashion ever since 'that moment' with the chip fryer in series one.
In fact 'ruthless' is a pretty accurate picture of where we were at when the show ended - with the much loved stalwart Ruth Evershed meeting her demise to break the heart of Sir Harry Pearce.
So, having been taken off television and without a band of established characters to explore further, why make a film? Still, bizarre and illogical as the timing might have been, Spooks: The Greater Good worked.
Yes, this was just, in essence, an extended TV episode and, yes, it might've meant less if you hadn't got a deep affinity for Sir Harry's character, but this was a film that captured what was greart about the show at its height. Those strengths being good, pacy character-driven storytelling, regular deaths of big name stars to keep you on your toes and truck loads of tension.
If anything, the lack of too many established characters probably helped make this a film that could be enjoyed by someone with no knowledge of the TV programme. It also left open a berth for a main star which was ably filled by Kit Harington. The Game of Thrones actor brought a necessary wider appeal to the film and filled the posters in a way that Peter Firth might have struggled to do.
Harington and Firth hit it off pretty well as a duo too, both conveying characters with a rich, dark past that added to their mystique. Harington provided the action and Firth, playing a rogue, wrongly-accused Pearce, provided subterfuge and bastardry (with a splash of humanity) that makes his one of my all-time favourite TV characters. Firth's performance ensured the many layers he built up over years on TV were brought out before the cinema audience. He surely deserves another outing?
It all looked great on the screen with the odd explosion thrown in to keep the pace up but, as ever with Spooks, this was more about the substance than the style. It doesn't try to take on Bourne and Bond, but nor should it. There's more than one way to skin a spy story and this was no worse for not having more chase sequences or pyrotechnics.
Elyes Gabel played a believable and not-one-dimensional Adam Qasim, the dangerous on-the-run terrorist who escapes from the clutches of MI5 to set up the plot. Tim McInnerny's Oliver Mace perhaps strayed a little too into the stereotypical bracket, as did David Harewood's Warrender, while Jennifer Ehle had a guessable-but-still-enjoyable ending.
Still a few poorly fleshed out characters aside (more than made up for in my book by the return of Malcolm) this was a strong return for Spooks. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, comes next for Sir Harry and co. More along these lines would certainly be for the 'greater good'...
Sunday 10 May 2015
Hamiltons watched on as Conservatives held off UKIP charge in target seat
Boston and Skegness stayed Tory blue in the end, with Matt Warman replicating his party's strong performance across the country and taking the seat with a 4,336 majority.
It was a long old night at the Peter Paine Sports Centre in Boston; the eight-and-a-half-hour count took its toll on a bleary eyed Neil and Christine Hamilton, who were denied the chance to celebrate with their young protege - the 22-year-old Robin Hunter Clarke failing to capture the seat despite a 15.1 per cent swing to his party.
When the Hamiltons turned up at about 12.30am, the night was young and many predicted a tight race that could've seen politics' odd-couple celebrating. Christine was all smiles - ruffling the hair of a couple of policemen and mingling while Neil gave interviews to the press, who latched on the chance to fill the 'there's nothing happening' void with some material.
Still, the smiles soon faded as the war of attrition set in. We waited and waited, restlessly shifting from the 'press room' to the TV and back into the counting hall as it became clear this was going to be a slog. The count itself didn't begin until just before 2am thanks to some delayed papers from the Skegness end of the constituency which delayed the verification process.
The long hours not only sapped away at the energy but also the chances of a UKIP win - more and more senior Tories re-iterated that they fancied a win - with predictions ranging from 2,000-6,000. Like the 10pm exit poll that shocked the country, they were spot on. Yet it was 6.30am before the result, which by then had become inevitable, was confirmed.
Warman, the now ex head of technology at the Daily Telegraph, proved a solid contender for the party after emerging from a fairly closely contested primary. He did enough to convince the party's traditional supporters - which are especially strong in number in the villages - to stick with the Tories after a somewhat fractious end to his predecessor's time as MP.
Mark Simmonds may have earned a 12,426 majority in 2010 but by last year relations had soured with local Tories, who felt he neglected his constituency duties after becoming a junior foreign office minister. Many felt his resignation - and comments about the pay and conditions of an MP - were framed in a way to 'get back' at his critics. Of course we may never know what Simmonds truly felt since he turned down several offers of an interview with the local press. He still lives in the area and I'm told he did vote for his replacement and offer him support.
Still, senior Conservatives in the town feel that if he had been on the ballot paper on Thursday UKIP would've won.
So, if the right name was on the ballot for the Tories, was it for UKIP? It was certainly a bold move to install a 22-year-old candidate to such a high profile target seat, especially given that it had, from the outside, appeared to have been Neil Hamilton's chosen location for a potential political comeback. Hamilton mysteriously pulled out of an in-house party hustings to pave the way for Robin so, I asked, did he think he'd have done better?
Robin, a county councillor, says he aims to do just that. He believes the Conservatives 'played the SNP card' to great effect but says the result showed people were wrong to question his ability as a candidate.
He added: "Clearly the electoral system is broken and needs to be fixed but I'm afraid turkeys don't vote for Christmas and the Conservatives won't change the system that's led them to victory."
He backed UKIP to work with other minority parties - an unlikely alliance with the Greens it seems! - to press the need for change.
The victorious Warman, however, said the electorate had had the chance to change the system with the AV referendum of 2011 and felt 'first past the post' was still the best way to deliver stable Governments.
The new MP laughed off my cheeky question about any potential job in the new Cameron administration - instead saying he intends to use his influence to get key figures to come to the constituency and address its issues.
There is a strong sense in Boston that it is 'forgotten' and while Warman feels some of that is a perception - pointing to the cash for a new flood barrier as an example - he accepts that there's some truth in it, especially when it comes to the need for 'big ticket infrastructure'.
As part of his campaign he brought Jeremy Hunt and Chris Grayling to the constituency. While that aimed to show voters that a Tory MP could have the ear of big hitters in the Government, he hopes it will be a blueprint to prove to voters that the area's issues are being heard.
It's a stark contrast to the bizarre visit of Andrew Lansley, the then-health minister, to the Pilgrim Hospital in Boston in 2012. He came on the invitation of Mark Simmonds but everything possible was done to give the press the slip - including changing the plan to take Lansley out of the building around the back to avoid us. Excuses, bizarrely, included that it was the London mayoral election and a minister couldn't talk to us as a result. When we later happened upon Lansley walking through the town, he was only too happy to give us a quick chat. Simmonds, it turned out, was lobbying for cash to replace the maternity unit and probably could've done with the public support he could've got by involving the press and public but he just wasn't that sort of MP; only later turning to the paper when bureaucrats failed to cash in on the support Lansley had given for the project.
Warman will need to be more open with voters and involve them in the politics he carries out from here - big name visits are fine but the ridiculous subterfuge of the Lansley visit must be avoided.
The hospital too, with the threat to some of its services, is a huge issue for him to get his teeth into.
Still, getting back to the night, and why did Warman think his party could prove the pollsters wrong and gain a majority?
So, how about leaving his job at the Telegraph? Many people, after all, would love to be at the front of the queue to test and talk about the latest technology as he has been.
Full result:
Matt Warman (Conservative), 18,981, 43.8% (-5.7)
Robin Hunter-Clarke (UKIP), 14,645, 33.8% (+24.3)
Paul Kenny (Labour), 7,142, 16.5% (-4.2)
David Watts (Lib Dem), 1,015, 2.3% (-12.4)
Victoria Percival (Green), 800, 1.8%
Chris Pain (Independence From Europe), 324, 0.7%
Peter Johnson (Ind), 170, 0.4%
Lyn Luxton (Pilgrim Party), 143, 0.3%
Robert West (BNP), 119, 0.3% (-5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it wasn't all positive for the Tories on Thursday night/Friday morning. The more hardcore of us among the press carried on until 10.30am when the final Boston Borough Council result came in. Not Sky, they buggered off as soon as they'd done their post-victory interview with Matt Warman - although hats off to them for arranging to install their own internet connection to the venue for the night, that's the sort of planning and resources local media could only dream of!
The results here were more exciting and close than the General Election race that came before. UKIP - which had no seats going into the vote - and the Tories were neck and neck throughout and ended on 13 seats apiece on the 30-seat council. It meant the Conservatives have lost overall control of the council, although, in an immediate twist, look to have already picked up one councillor who has fallen out with UKIP before even taking his seat. At 14-12 with two independents and two Labour members they should just about be able to carry on in charge - but not without a fair few headaches along the way.
With more cuts to come to local Government this could be a really testing time for the council going forward. It proves, too, that the UKIP surge in Boston cannot be written off.
 |
| Matt Warman delivers a victory speech at 6.30am |
It was a long old night at the Peter Paine Sports Centre in Boston; the eight-and-a-half-hour count took its toll on a bleary eyed Neil and Christine Hamilton, who were denied the chance to celebrate with their young protege - the 22-year-old Robin Hunter Clarke failing to capture the seat despite a 15.1 per cent swing to his party.
When the Hamiltons turned up at about 12.30am, the night was young and many predicted a tight race that could've seen politics' odd-couple celebrating. Christine was all smiles - ruffling the hair of a couple of policemen and mingling while Neil gave interviews to the press, who latched on the chance to fill the 'there's nothing happening' void with some material.
 |
| Neil Hamilton came to support his young protege...but would he have done better? |
 |
| It proved a long and fruitless night for the Hamiltons |
Warman, the now ex head of technology at the Daily Telegraph, proved a solid contender for the party after emerging from a fairly closely contested primary. He did enough to convince the party's traditional supporters - which are especially strong in number in the villages - to stick with the Tories after a somewhat fractious end to his predecessor's time as MP.
Mark Simmonds may have earned a 12,426 majority in 2010 but by last year relations had soured with local Tories, who felt he neglected his constituency duties after becoming a junior foreign office minister. Many felt his resignation - and comments about the pay and conditions of an MP - were framed in a way to 'get back' at his critics. Of course we may never know what Simmonds truly felt since he turned down several offers of an interview with the local press. He still lives in the area and I'm told he did vote for his replacement and offer him support.
Still, senior Conservatives in the town feel that if he had been on the ballot paper on Thursday UKIP would've won.
So, if the right name was on the ballot for the Tories, was it for UKIP? It was certainly a bold move to install a 22-year-old candidate to such a high profile target seat, especially given that it had, from the outside, appeared to have been Neil Hamilton's chosen location for a potential political comeback. Hamilton mysteriously pulled out of an in-house party hustings to pave the way for Robin so, I asked, did he think he'd have done better?
Hamilton said: "It's hard to say. I am a controversial figure on the one hand, but on the other hand I do have 50 years experience of fighting elections [he joined the Conservative party aged 15 in 1964] and I do have a war chest from supporters that could've helped my campaign. So, who knows?"He did go on to praise the young runner-up though, saying the party 'couldn't have had a better candidate' and that he hoped Robin would fight again in five years time.
 |
| Robin Hunter-Clarke remained upbeat in his post-defeat interviews |
He told me: "I am pleased with the result. We shaved thousands off their majority and saw the biggest swing to UKIP in the whole country - nobody can question my age or ability, I have proved myself.He was one of many people - Green candidate Victoria Percival included - to join the call for electoral reform, highlighting the fact that earning the third largest share of the national vote only earned UKIP one MP.
"I have grown massively in confidence and have enjoyed every single second."
He added: "Clearly the electoral system is broken and needs to be fixed but I'm afraid turkeys don't vote for Christmas and the Conservatives won't change the system that's led them to victory."
He backed UKIP to work with other minority parties - an unlikely alliance with the Greens it seems! - to press the need for change.
The victorious Warman, however, said the electorate had had the chance to change the system with the AV referendum of 2011 and felt 'first past the post' was still the best way to deliver stable Governments.
The new MP laughed off my cheeky question about any potential job in the new Cameron administration - instead saying he intends to use his influence to get key figures to come to the constituency and address its issues.
There is a strong sense in Boston that it is 'forgotten' and while Warman feels some of that is a perception - pointing to the cash for a new flood barrier as an example - he accepts that there's some truth in it, especially when it comes to the need for 'big ticket infrastructure'.
As part of his campaign he brought Jeremy Hunt and Chris Grayling to the constituency. While that aimed to show voters that a Tory MP could have the ear of big hitters in the Government, he hopes it will be a blueprint to prove to voters that the area's issues are being heard.
It's a stark contrast to the bizarre visit of Andrew Lansley, the then-health minister, to the Pilgrim Hospital in Boston in 2012. He came on the invitation of Mark Simmonds but everything possible was done to give the press the slip - including changing the plan to take Lansley out of the building around the back to avoid us. Excuses, bizarrely, included that it was the London mayoral election and a minister couldn't talk to us as a result. When we later happened upon Lansley walking through the town, he was only too happy to give us a quick chat. Simmonds, it turned out, was lobbying for cash to replace the maternity unit and probably could've done with the public support he could've got by involving the press and public but he just wasn't that sort of MP; only later turning to the paper when bureaucrats failed to cash in on the support Lansley had given for the project.
Warman will need to be more open with voters and involve them in the politics he carries out from here - big name visits are fine but the ridiculous subterfuge of the Lansley visit must be avoided.
The hospital too, with the threat to some of its services, is a huge issue for him to get his teeth into.
Still, getting back to the night, and why did Warman think his party could prove the pollsters wrong and gain a majority?
He said: "Evidently there's an element of 1992 about it. What we have seen is that, when it came to the crucial moment at the ballot box, people have realised that the economy was too precious to risk and people realised that David Cameron was a far better option than Ed Miliband, and they also didn't want the SNP to prop up a Labour Government."He wouldn't be drawn into comment on his defeated rivals, but felt his party offered more 'solutions' to the issues UKIP posed than any other, alongside a 'positive vision'.
So, how about leaving his job at the Telegraph? Many people, after all, would love to be at the front of the queue to test and talk about the latest technology as he has been.
He explained: "I came to the conclusion a few years ago that I wanted to be an actor and not a critic."But what about technology when it comes to voting? Perhaps inspired by the marathon count I asked if he thinks we'll soon be voting and counting in a very different way?
He said that issues such as Facebook privacy made him feel passionate but that: "If you really care about this stuff then the only way to make a difference is if you're not on the sidelines."
He said: "It's very hard to come up with a more secure system than what we have at the moment. It might be old fashioned but it works. I am not romantic about this stuff but it's working and you should be very careful about replacing it with something that's risky."So there we have it - we'll probably still be sitting there until 6.30am next time too but we shouldn't moan. For a journalist there's something enjoyable about count night. The atmosphere is like no other and it wouldn't quite be the same without the test of endurance that means you've still got to be able to ask key questions despite being half awake. Maybe Matt's right?
Full result:
Matt Warman (Conservative), 18,981, 43.8% (-5.7)
Robin Hunter-Clarke (UKIP), 14,645, 33.8% (+24.3)
Paul Kenny (Labour), 7,142, 16.5% (-4.2)
David Watts (Lib Dem), 1,015, 2.3% (-12.4)
Victoria Percival (Green), 800, 1.8%
Chris Pain (Independence From Europe), 324, 0.7%
Peter Johnson (Ind), 170, 0.4%
Lyn Luxton (Pilgrim Party), 143, 0.3%
Robert West (BNP), 119, 0.3% (-5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it wasn't all positive for the Tories on Thursday night/Friday morning. The more hardcore of us among the press carried on until 10.30am when the final Boston Borough Council result came in. Not Sky, they buggered off as soon as they'd done their post-victory interview with Matt Warman - although hats off to them for arranging to install their own internet connection to the venue for the night, that's the sort of planning and resources local media could only dream of!
The results here were more exciting and close than the General Election race that came before. UKIP - which had no seats going into the vote - and the Tories were neck and neck throughout and ended on 13 seats apiece on the 30-seat council. It meant the Conservatives have lost overall control of the council, although, in an immediate twist, look to have already picked up one councillor who has fallen out with UKIP before even taking his seat. At 14-12 with two independents and two Labour members they should just about be able to carry on in charge - but not without a fair few headaches along the way.
With more cuts to come to local Government this could be a really testing time for the council going forward. It proves, too, that the UKIP surge in Boston cannot be written off.
Monday 4 May 2015
Voting does matter...even in safe seats
The General Election campaign will drag on a few days more yet but for many people it will have seemed all over before it began.
Take South Holland and the Deepings, for example. The seat is held by Conservative John Hayes who, in 2010, won a 21,880 majority with 59.1 per cent of the vote. The only questions to be decided on Thursday are whether his vote will be nearer 50 or 60 per cent this time and who will come second.
But, maybe it's time to look at the way we vote differently. In this election I think the share of the public vote will actually matter, even if it doesn't directly impact on the outcome of seats such as South Holland and the Deepings. There's two reasons for this:
*Firstly, it still appears as though no-one will win an outright majority. That means the potential for coalition negotiations or, possibly, a minority government. Whilst it's seats that matter I actually think that if this figure is incredibly close the share of the vote could be seen as a factor to help 'legitimise' a government. If there are two sides with roughly equal numbers of seats but one clearly attracted a greater number of people to place their 'X' then it could act as a tie breaker - a bit like goal difference in football. So, while whoever came second in South Holland might seem irrelevant, the votes given to the parties here could prove important.
*Vote share could also be important when looking to the future of British politics. One knock-on effect of the rise of UKIP has been to spread the calls for voting reform beyond the Lib Dems and Greens. Between the three of them they could attract 25-30 per cent of the vote but end up with fewer than five per cent of the seats. I can foresee a situation where that sort of calculation starts to tip the balance towards the need for reform. So, to return to dear old South Holland and the Deepings, a vote for an outsider party in that constituency may strengthen the case for reform and serve to highlight the declining relevance of 'first past the post'. Equally, if you don't feel that way, it's clear that a vote for the Tories or Labour can help bolster the status quo in such a scenario.
In some respects non-Tory voters have a free reign in South Holland and the Deepings just as non Labour voters would in Bootle or West Ham. They know who their MP will be come Friday morning so they don't need to think tactically, they should simply vote for who they like - let a site such as Votes for Policies help you choose if you're unsure - and know that there's no reason why that vote won't matter in either the short or long term.
I always think that not voting simply allows the political system to be dominated by those people who blindly support one party. That vocal, tribal, card-carrying, bandwagon-jumping minority of political nutters then gets its voice heard loudest. When the overall race is as close as this one we shouldn't leave it to them.
PS: I gave my verdict on how the five candidates for South Holland and the Deepings fared at a recent hustings event for the Spalding Voice. Read it here.
Take South Holland and the Deepings, for example. The seat is held by Conservative John Hayes who, in 2010, won a 21,880 majority with 59.1 per cent of the vote. The only questions to be decided on Thursday are whether his vote will be nearer 50 or 60 per cent this time and who will come second.
But, maybe it's time to look at the way we vote differently. In this election I think the share of the public vote will actually matter, even if it doesn't directly impact on the outcome of seats such as South Holland and the Deepings. There's two reasons for this:
*Firstly, it still appears as though no-one will win an outright majority. That means the potential for coalition negotiations or, possibly, a minority government. Whilst it's seats that matter I actually think that if this figure is incredibly close the share of the vote could be seen as a factor to help 'legitimise' a government. If there are two sides with roughly equal numbers of seats but one clearly attracted a greater number of people to place their 'X' then it could act as a tie breaker - a bit like goal difference in football. So, while whoever came second in South Holland might seem irrelevant, the votes given to the parties here could prove important.
*Vote share could also be important when looking to the future of British politics. One knock-on effect of the rise of UKIP has been to spread the calls for voting reform beyond the Lib Dems and Greens. Between the three of them they could attract 25-30 per cent of the vote but end up with fewer than five per cent of the seats. I can foresee a situation where that sort of calculation starts to tip the balance towards the need for reform. So, to return to dear old South Holland and the Deepings, a vote for an outsider party in that constituency may strengthen the case for reform and serve to highlight the declining relevance of 'first past the post'. Equally, if you don't feel that way, it's clear that a vote for the Tories or Labour can help bolster the status quo in such a scenario.
In some respects non-Tory voters have a free reign in South Holland and the Deepings just as non Labour voters would in Bootle or West Ham. They know who their MP will be come Friday morning so they don't need to think tactically, they should simply vote for who they like - let a site such as Votes for Policies help you choose if you're unsure - and know that there's no reason why that vote won't matter in either the short or long term.
I always think that not voting simply allows the political system to be dominated by those people who blindly support one party. That vocal, tribal, card-carrying, bandwagon-jumping minority of political nutters then gets its voice heard loudest. When the overall race is as close as this one we shouldn't leave it to them.
PS: I gave my verdict on how the five candidates for South Holland and the Deepings fared at a recent hustings event for the Spalding Voice. Read it here.
Thursday 30 April 2015
Audience on song to grill election trio
Fair play to the BBC. When it comes to an election people line up to say it's biased. I often think that if the sheep from all sides are bleating then you're probably doing as good a job as possible of being fair and balanced. The Beeb came in for some criticism for the audience assembled for the five-way leader debate and, while I think that was possibly a tactic, it's clear that it raised its game with tonight's Question Time special. This time the audience seemed not only balanced but also energised and up for the challenge of holding Cameron, Miliband and Clegg to account.
Cameron kicked off Question Time with his half-hour. He frustrated the camera-man by instantly stepping off the large 'Q', and walked straight into a grilling about welfare and benefits. He was clearly prepped but still dodged the chance to offer more detail on the cuts to come. On the economy and NHS he drifted into 'pumped up Dave' territory but this was not the occasion for full-on sleeves-up arm-waving mode - not least because sweating under lights isn't pretty. This was like the second half of the now-distant Sky News debate and, just as in that slot, he enjoyed the format. That's not to say he was comfortable - the benefits non-answer was rumbled, the umpteenth brandish of 'the note' fell flat and the daft 'law to ban tax rises' was exposed - but he survived and will look back on a performance that at least ticked the 'Prime Ministerial' box at the same time as not forgetting which football team he apparently supports.
Ed stepped up second and found that the crowd was in no mood to forgive and forget the past. He floundered a little here, struggling to address this 'overspending blamed for recession' line. By now Ed and his party really ought to have forged a stronger retort to the narrative established by their opponents. Why doesn't he talk about how the money had to be spent to save banks and therefore people's mortgages and savings. He'll grab headlines over his promise to govern as a minority - even though he's already mentioned it - rather than go for an electoral deal and stuck strongly to his guns on the EU and immigration. Still, that pesky raised Q might still overshadow his half-hour, with his stumble off it as he left the stage at the end proving fodder for creators of Gifs, Vines and memes everywhere.
The audience was in no mood to let Clegg off the hook either - slapping him straight around the chops with 'that' tuition fees question. The Lib Dem leader's hours spent answering calls on LBC will have helped here as he was adept at addressing the interrogations from the clued-up crowd.He defended himself and was able to play his 'i'm different to them honest' card, sounding like he was answering the 'coalition question' more openly than the others even though he wasn't. As damage limitations go this was a decent effort.
The snap poll crowned the Prime Minister the winner. In the long term it'll be interesting to see if Ed Miliband's risky sounding 'i'll govern alone' line has any impact though.
It's a cliche to say that the audience was the winner but this was a crowd that asked tough, testing questions and didn't let any of the trio get away with their standard spin. All three were at it - using the questioner's name, the obligatory 'that's a great question' when they realise they've got no response and saying 'let me address that directly' before doing anything but - and the crowd was in no mood to let them off the hook. The BBC needs to bottle this audience and take it on tour to future Question Time episodes. Led by the excellent David Dimbleby they helped give us an entertaining and challenging 90 minutes that outstripped most of the regular series shows from recent weeks. There's life in the Beeb - and political debates yet it seems...
Cameron kicked off Question Time with his half-hour. He frustrated the camera-man by instantly stepping off the large 'Q', and walked straight into a grilling about welfare and benefits. He was clearly prepped but still dodged the chance to offer more detail on the cuts to come. On the economy and NHS he drifted into 'pumped up Dave' territory but this was not the occasion for full-on sleeves-up arm-waving mode - not least because sweating under lights isn't pretty. This was like the second half of the now-distant Sky News debate and, just as in that slot, he enjoyed the format. That's not to say he was comfortable - the benefits non-answer was rumbled, the umpteenth brandish of 'the note' fell flat and the daft 'law to ban tax rises' was exposed - but he survived and will look back on a performance that at least ticked the 'Prime Ministerial' box at the same time as not forgetting which football team he apparently supports.
Ed stepped up second and found that the crowd was in no mood to forgive and forget the past. He floundered a little here, struggling to address this 'overspending blamed for recession' line. By now Ed and his party really ought to have forged a stronger retort to the narrative established by their opponents. Why doesn't he talk about how the money had to be spent to save banks and therefore people's mortgages and savings. He'll grab headlines over his promise to govern as a minority - even though he's already mentioned it - rather than go for an electoral deal and stuck strongly to his guns on the EU and immigration. Still, that pesky raised Q might still overshadow his half-hour, with his stumble off it as he left the stage at the end proving fodder for creators of Gifs, Vines and memes everywhere.
The audience was in no mood to let Clegg off the hook either - slapping him straight around the chops with 'that' tuition fees question. The Lib Dem leader's hours spent answering calls on LBC will have helped here as he was adept at addressing the interrogations from the clued-up crowd.He defended himself and was able to play his 'i'm different to them honest' card, sounding like he was answering the 'coalition question' more openly than the others even though he wasn't. As damage limitations go this was a decent effort.
The snap poll crowned the Prime Minister the winner. In the long term it'll be interesting to see if Ed Miliband's risky sounding 'i'll govern alone' line has any impact though.
It's a cliche to say that the audience was the winner but this was a crowd that asked tough, testing questions and didn't let any of the trio get away with their standard spin. All three were at it - using the questioner's name, the obligatory 'that's a great question' when they realise they've got no response and saying 'let me address that directly' before doing anything but - and the crowd was in no mood to let them off the hook. The BBC needs to bottle this audience and take it on tour to future Question Time episodes. Led by the excellent David Dimbleby they helped give us an entertaining and challenging 90 minutes that outstripped most of the regular series shows from recent weeks. There's life in the Beeb - and political debates yet it seems...
Monday 27 April 2015
Boston and Skegness: The anatomy of a UKIP target seat
Boston and Skegness is a key target seat for UKIP in next week's election. Nigel Farage has been saying so himself for quite some time. But will the party succeed? What makes it a target and what factors may affect the result?
Firstly, it's hard to deny that UKIP's success in Boston and Skegness has been astonishing. In the 2005 and 2010 General Elections it scored its highest and second highest share of the vote in the constituency. That proved to be the mere launchpad when, in 2013, the party pulled off a big result at the Lincolnshire County Council elections. The night began with six of Boston's seven seats in Conservative hands. I stood and watched as it ended with five of the seven in UKIP hands and just the one Tory remaining.
The surge didn't end there. Nowhere else in the country gave a higher support to UKIP in the European Parliament elections 12 months later. In total 52 per cent of the people who turned out to vote in Boston supported UKIP.
So, logically, the next stop is to elect an MP surely? Well, the first thing to stress is that it could happen. Aside from this, Boston itself has 'form' when it comes to kicking out ruling Tories, with the Boston Bypass Independents sweeping to a famous council victory in 2007. UKIP commissioned Survation to carry out a poll last year and it predicted the party could win 46% of the vote, with the Tories - who currently hold the seat with a near-12,500 majority - on 26%. A later poll for Lord Ashcroft, however, had the Tories holding onto the seat 38-35 over UKIP in second.
It's clear too, let's be honest, that UKIP's support has built up in Boston on the back of its focus on immigration. The foreign-born population in Boston rose by 467% between 2001 and 2011 according to Census data that is hotly disputed in the borough. Whatever you think about immigration - let's not go into that right now - it's clear that with those sheer numbers it is bound to be a talking point.
At one point issues surrounding immigration caused unrest among a significant minority in the town. An on-off 'protest march' movement eventually manifested itself as a static protest and it's fair to say that much of the frustration underpinning that has fed into UKIP's subsequent political success, even though this was not the work of the party. The local council's response to that sentiment in Boston was to hold an 'immigration inquiry' calling on witnesses from education, health, employment etc. It drew up a wish-list of proposals that were needed and the process was an attempt to show that it wasn't racist to talk about immigration while recognising that population growth had had an impact on services. To some extent the borough elections, also next Thursday, will be the voters' judgement on how successful the inquiry's eventual report has been.
But this isn't just a straightforward tale of 'anti-immigration vote equals UKIP victory'. It's too blinkered to see matters such as this in such simplistic terms. To an extent, I feel sorry for Boston. It has, in the past, been the 'bad traffic town' and the 'fat town' and now it's the 'immigration town'. It's forever labelled and, when it is, people often fail to look beyond the label. So, yes, immigration is a huge election topic - undeniably the biggest - yet there are other issues that will have a say in the outcome of this election.
Forgotten
Following on from the above, it's important not to forget that there is a strong sense among some Bostonians that they're forgotten. Whether it's by the Westminster elite when it comes to immigration, or at a more local level when it comes to being 'governed by Lincoln', these are pretty strong perceptions. Yes, you can read UKIP's county council surge as a protest vote if you like but don't ignore that part of that protest may well have been against County Hall. Lincoln is on its fourth bypass, Grantham is getting a bypass, Spalding is planning a second, even Burgh Le Marsh has one yet Boston's seems a long, long way off. It's unfair to put that at the door of one council - it's been a bugbear for decades - but ignore it at your peril. People in Boston are sick and tired of traffic issues. They once elected a party to tackle that and, although that went pear shaped, it shows they're prepared to air their dissatisfaction. Health - and the need to support the Pilgrim Hospital - education and flood risk are also big issues.
Constituency
This post has, to a large extent, centred on Boston but it's important to consider that the constituency isn't solely about Boston. It's the biggest town and draws the most attention but there's also Skegness - a seaside town with its own set of issues - and a host of villages in between and around the two. It remains to be seen whether UKIP will be as strong here, especially the villages which traditionally deliver a strong Tory vote.
Two votes
Perceived wisdom, for what it's worth, suggests that the fact it's a council election next Thursday too should boost turnout. The same train of thought would say that the higher the turnout the harder it is for the challenger to win. Turnout in the aforementioned Euro elections was a mere 33.3% - it won't be as low next Thursday. Of course there is always a danger that a disgruntled local election protester will take a chance to land a 'double blow' on their opponents too.
Age
What about the people actually standing? UKIP's charge is led by Robin Hunter-Clarke. The young Tory-turned-Ukipper might be seen by some as 'too young' at 22 to entrust with the responsibilities of the Commons - especially if he ends up part of a small group of MPs propping up a whole Government. It's a charge he dismisses and he might turn out to be a much safer bet than Neil Hamilton, who withdrew his bid to stand for election right at the last minute. UKIP's own polling showed people weren't too favourable to Hamilton and, while the Skegness born contender will need to convince people he has the right qualities and experience to succeed, he won't be forever facing questions on the past as Hamilton would've done.
Fresh face for Tories
A UKIP source told me they were delighted when incumbent Mark Simmonds said he was standing down. They felt it was easier to win a vacant seat than fight a familiar face on their own record. That's maybe true but there are some people in the town who had become less than enamoured with Mark Simmonds. The MP was originally denied a job under Cameron by the circumstances of the coalition but eventually got a post in the foreign office. Over time his relationship with the local Tories became strained and upon announcing his resignation Mr Simmonds bemoaned the 'intolerable' impact of trying to live with his family on the pay and expenses he received - something that caused a fair bit of a stir in the national press. He was offered a full interview to explain his comments to the electorate and chose not to bother. His replacement on the Tory ticket is the Daily Telegraph head of technology Matt Warman. In the circumstances an articulate and sensible fresh face might well do the Tories good. Those that would've voted for Mark Simmonds won't be put off by Matt Warman and some of those who had drifted away will return. Warman himself will benefit from having to win his nomination through a party primary, a good chance to sharpen his campaigning skills.
Packed field
It's easy to see this as a Tory-UKIP scrap but it's not. It's a nine-strong field which is bound to complicate matters. Labour's Paul Kenny is fighting for the third time. He'll be buoyed by the fact that in 1997 and 2001 this was a Labour/Tory marginal where the majority was below 1,000. He himself performed well as mayor, particularly prominently in the aftermath of the floods which hit the town in late 2013, and may have an appeal beyond the party as a result.
UKIP itself must contend with the challenge of Chris Pain. He led the party in Lincolnshire to its county council success before a bitter fallout with Farage and co which also saw other UKIP councillors leave the party. Chris Pain stood in 2010 for UKIP and is now under the banner of An Independence From Europe, itself launched by ex-UKIP member Mike Nattrass. The split had little or no impact in last year's Euro elections but it might eat into Robin Hunter-Clarke's vote here. Independent Peter Johnson, a former policeman, might well dilute the vote available to UKIP, occupying a 'none of the above' 'common sense' ground that the eurosceptic party likes to try to sit within.
The Tories may well lose some votes to Lyn Luxton. She wanted to win the party's nomination and, when not chosen to contest the primary, switched to the Lincolnshire Independents before founding her own Pilgrim Party. She'd done a lot of canvassing on the ground before being snubbed by the Tories and will hope that now bears fruit.
Victoria Percival promises to be a passionate exponent of the Green cause - and might surprise a few - while the BNP's Robert West is an often controversial character who is a veteran of various elections over the years.
Don't expect too much from the Lib Dem though. David Watts is the party's contender but you'd think he'll probably be busy defending his seat on Broxtowe Borough Council. Broxtowe, where I'm originally from incidentally, is run by a Lib-Lab coalition so it'll be a tight race. His selection shouts 'paper candidate' to me.
A close call
The electoral past of the last couple of years points towards UKIP doing very well but it's clear that some of the facts make this a far-from-straightforward seat to call. The circumstances of the vote - on the same day as the council election - the fact there are nine contenders with their own personal strengths and the existence of other issues affecting voters' choices beyond immigration all make for a much more complex picture. If the bookies know anything - and you don't often see a poor one - they reckon the Tories are now favourites again. All I know for sure is that it could be a long and dramatic night next Thursday. See you there.
Firstly, it's hard to deny that UKIP's success in Boston and Skegness has been astonishing. In the 2005 and 2010 General Elections it scored its highest and second highest share of the vote in the constituency. That proved to be the mere launchpad when, in 2013, the party pulled off a big result at the Lincolnshire County Council elections. The night began with six of Boston's seven seats in Conservative hands. I stood and watched as it ended with five of the seven in UKIP hands and just the one Tory remaining.
The surge didn't end there. Nowhere else in the country gave a higher support to UKIP in the European Parliament elections 12 months later. In total 52 per cent of the people who turned out to vote in Boston supported UKIP.
So, logically, the next stop is to elect an MP surely? Well, the first thing to stress is that it could happen. Aside from this, Boston itself has 'form' when it comes to kicking out ruling Tories, with the Boston Bypass Independents sweeping to a famous council victory in 2007. UKIP commissioned Survation to carry out a poll last year and it predicted the party could win 46% of the vote, with the Tories - who currently hold the seat with a near-12,500 majority - on 26%. A later poll for Lord Ashcroft, however, had the Tories holding onto the seat 38-35 over UKIP in second.
It's clear too, let's be honest, that UKIP's support has built up in Boston on the back of its focus on immigration. The foreign-born population in Boston rose by 467% between 2001 and 2011 according to Census data that is hotly disputed in the borough. Whatever you think about immigration - let's not go into that right now - it's clear that with those sheer numbers it is bound to be a talking point.
At one point issues surrounding immigration caused unrest among a significant minority in the town. An on-off 'protest march' movement eventually manifested itself as a static protest and it's fair to say that much of the frustration underpinning that has fed into UKIP's subsequent political success, even though this was not the work of the party. The local council's response to that sentiment in Boston was to hold an 'immigration inquiry' calling on witnesses from education, health, employment etc. It drew up a wish-list of proposals that were needed and the process was an attempt to show that it wasn't racist to talk about immigration while recognising that population growth had had an impact on services. To some extent the borough elections, also next Thursday, will be the voters' judgement on how successful the inquiry's eventual report has been.
But this isn't just a straightforward tale of 'anti-immigration vote equals UKIP victory'. It's too blinkered to see matters such as this in such simplistic terms. To an extent, I feel sorry for Boston. It has, in the past, been the 'bad traffic town' and the 'fat town' and now it's the 'immigration town'. It's forever labelled and, when it is, people often fail to look beyond the label. So, yes, immigration is a huge election topic - undeniably the biggest - yet there are other issues that will have a say in the outcome of this election.
Forgotten
Following on from the above, it's important not to forget that there is a strong sense among some Bostonians that they're forgotten. Whether it's by the Westminster elite when it comes to immigration, or at a more local level when it comes to being 'governed by Lincoln', these are pretty strong perceptions. Yes, you can read UKIP's county council surge as a protest vote if you like but don't ignore that part of that protest may well have been against County Hall. Lincoln is on its fourth bypass, Grantham is getting a bypass, Spalding is planning a second, even Burgh Le Marsh has one yet Boston's seems a long, long way off. It's unfair to put that at the door of one council - it's been a bugbear for decades - but ignore it at your peril. People in Boston are sick and tired of traffic issues. They once elected a party to tackle that and, although that went pear shaped, it shows they're prepared to air their dissatisfaction. Health - and the need to support the Pilgrim Hospital - education and flood risk are also big issues.
Constituency
This post has, to a large extent, centred on Boston but it's important to consider that the constituency isn't solely about Boston. It's the biggest town and draws the most attention but there's also Skegness - a seaside town with its own set of issues - and a host of villages in between and around the two. It remains to be seen whether UKIP will be as strong here, especially the villages which traditionally deliver a strong Tory vote.
Two votes
Perceived wisdom, for what it's worth, suggests that the fact it's a council election next Thursday too should boost turnout. The same train of thought would say that the higher the turnout the harder it is for the challenger to win. Turnout in the aforementioned Euro elections was a mere 33.3% - it won't be as low next Thursday. Of course there is always a danger that a disgruntled local election protester will take a chance to land a 'double blow' on their opponents too.
Age
What about the people actually standing? UKIP's charge is led by Robin Hunter-Clarke. The young Tory-turned-Ukipper might be seen by some as 'too young' at 22 to entrust with the responsibilities of the Commons - especially if he ends up part of a small group of MPs propping up a whole Government. It's a charge he dismisses and he might turn out to be a much safer bet than Neil Hamilton, who withdrew his bid to stand for election right at the last minute. UKIP's own polling showed people weren't too favourable to Hamilton and, while the Skegness born contender will need to convince people he has the right qualities and experience to succeed, he won't be forever facing questions on the past as Hamilton would've done.
Fresh face for Tories
A UKIP source told me they were delighted when incumbent Mark Simmonds said he was standing down. They felt it was easier to win a vacant seat than fight a familiar face on their own record. That's maybe true but there are some people in the town who had become less than enamoured with Mark Simmonds. The MP was originally denied a job under Cameron by the circumstances of the coalition but eventually got a post in the foreign office. Over time his relationship with the local Tories became strained and upon announcing his resignation Mr Simmonds bemoaned the 'intolerable' impact of trying to live with his family on the pay and expenses he received - something that caused a fair bit of a stir in the national press. He was offered a full interview to explain his comments to the electorate and chose not to bother. His replacement on the Tory ticket is the Daily Telegraph head of technology Matt Warman. In the circumstances an articulate and sensible fresh face might well do the Tories good. Those that would've voted for Mark Simmonds won't be put off by Matt Warman and some of those who had drifted away will return. Warman himself will benefit from having to win his nomination through a party primary, a good chance to sharpen his campaigning skills.
Packed field
It's easy to see this as a Tory-UKIP scrap but it's not. It's a nine-strong field which is bound to complicate matters. Labour's Paul Kenny is fighting for the third time. He'll be buoyed by the fact that in 1997 and 2001 this was a Labour/Tory marginal where the majority was below 1,000. He himself performed well as mayor, particularly prominently in the aftermath of the floods which hit the town in late 2013, and may have an appeal beyond the party as a result.
UKIP itself must contend with the challenge of Chris Pain. He led the party in Lincolnshire to its county council success before a bitter fallout with Farage and co which also saw other UKIP councillors leave the party. Chris Pain stood in 2010 for UKIP and is now under the banner of An Independence From Europe, itself launched by ex-UKIP member Mike Nattrass. The split had little or no impact in last year's Euro elections but it might eat into Robin Hunter-Clarke's vote here. Independent Peter Johnson, a former policeman, might well dilute the vote available to UKIP, occupying a 'none of the above' 'common sense' ground that the eurosceptic party likes to try to sit within.
The Tories may well lose some votes to Lyn Luxton. She wanted to win the party's nomination and, when not chosen to contest the primary, switched to the Lincolnshire Independents before founding her own Pilgrim Party. She'd done a lot of canvassing on the ground before being snubbed by the Tories and will hope that now bears fruit.
Victoria Percival promises to be a passionate exponent of the Green cause - and might surprise a few - while the BNP's Robert West is an often controversial character who is a veteran of various elections over the years.
Don't expect too much from the Lib Dem though. David Watts is the party's contender but you'd think he'll probably be busy defending his seat on Broxtowe Borough Council. Broxtowe, where I'm originally from incidentally, is run by a Lib-Lab coalition so it'll be a tight race. His selection shouts 'paper candidate' to me.
A close call
The electoral past of the last couple of years points towards UKIP doing very well but it's clear that some of the facts make this a far-from-straightforward seat to call. The circumstances of the vote - on the same day as the council election - the fact there are nine contenders with their own personal strengths and the existence of other issues affecting voters' choices beyond immigration all make for a much more complex picture. If the bookies know anything - and you don't often see a poor one - they reckon the Tories are now favourites again. All I know for sure is that it could be a long and dramatic night next Thursday. See you there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)