“Tongue-in-cheek” or accurate appraisal?

So the new edition of Rough Guide for England has been published. The comments, at least the ones available on the BBC’s page, paint a very mixed view of England. According to the book, no other country is as “insular, self important and irritating” as England, and the “hearts of many towns- and increasingly their outskirts- consist of identikit retail zones”.

It isn’t all doom and gloom, “it’s also a country where individuality and creativity flourish, fuelling a thriving pop culture and producing one of the most dynamic fashion, music and arts scenes to be found anywhere.” and some places, such as Bath, Oxford and Newcastle come out of the book well.

The point that struck me was the comment at the bottom of the page, with a spokesman insisting that the book was written “tongue-in-cheek”, and reflected the famous British sense of humour. I for one do not buy that line. According to the BBC’s page, the content of the book seems to be quite accurate. The brief excerpt from the book that is here is equally accurate.

It all paints a rather odd picture of a country struggling with its own national identity, with its people adrift in a sea of celebrity induced apathy, content to drink home-brand lager from the nearest off licence, yet with such a rich culture and heritage that is not easily surpassed anywhere else in the world.

So I will float the question out there, what do you think of England? Is it more accurately described as a country of “overweight, alcopop-swilling, sex- and celebrity-obsessed TV addicts”; or is it better described with  “the classic images [that] are found in every brochure – the village green, the duckpond, the country lane and the farmyard”? Or is the final conclusion perhaps the most apt, “England isn’t just one place, but a perpetual collision of culture, class and race…the only certainty for visitors is that however long you spend in England and however much you see, it still won’t be enough to understand the place”.

He’s at it again…

So my least favourite footballing bureaucrat is at it again. Today the muppet that is Sepp Blatter has come out with this nonsense. As I’m aware of the situation, there has to be a set number of English born players in any given Champions League squad already. Blatter has identified a ‘problem’ that there has been too many English teams in recent Champions League semi-finals and finals.

For the past three years there has been an English finalist. This year there is two. For Blatter, that is too many. It apparently does not show the strength of the English game in comparison to other leagues, but shows that English teams are too dominant because they are reliant on foreign imports. Blatter seems to ignore the period in the late 90’s/ early 2000’s when Real Madrid pretty much bossed the competition because they had bought the best players in the world for outrageous fees. That isn’t his concern. His concern is sticking his nose into English football to limit it’s potential on a European stage. This really annoys me.

I think the concern should be not with limiting the impact of English clubs, but instead with improving the quality of the game in other countries. Blatter, in his limited wisdom, thinks otherwise. People across the world rate the Premier League as the best in the world (even allowing for a club like Derby), the nature of the league, with its fast pace and competitive spirit I believe is second to none. Looking at the top leagues in other European Countries and I’m not so sure the same can be said. Italian football, now back on our tv’s after a long absence, is watchable, but lacks the blood-and-guts passion of the English game. Spanish football likewise seems a tad, well, pedestrian. The less said about the generally poor state of German football the better. Greece (the reigning European Cup holders) have a league, which, if we are generous, is on a par with our Championship.

To me it seems everywhere else has got the problems, but not in England. Our football is so strong that there was three Championship sides in the FA Cup semi-finals. Now how much our strength is down to foreign imports is a matter of much concern, and I think this is the issue Blatter was trying to combat. I disagree from a club perspective. Foreign imports are a necessary part of our game, if only to encourage development of better English players. Theo Walcott, a rising star of Arsenal’s team, was taught by the best player in the world at the time, Thierry Henry. Foreign players serve to strengthen the leagues, and limiting their numbers would only detract from the game at a time when more and more money is being pumped into it by fans. They want to see good football, and paying the prices that they do, care little of the nationality of the players.

For me, Blatter has got it wrong. His concern should not be with limiting English clubs potential, but instead with improving foreign clubs potential.

One quick question…

The time of night and my general levels of fatigue will necessarily keep this post very brief and to the point. In fact, it isn’t as much a post as a simple question, especially to the Labourites I know who may read this blog.

Now I know that you are all very much anti-discrimination. In any form. We all know that you shouldn’t discriminate on the grounds of race, gender, age, sexuality etc. Right?

Should we therefore accept the tired old line that Dave Cameron and Boris Johnson are no good simply because, as former Etonians, they represent everything that is wrong with the education system? To me, that seems like discrimination based on the grounds of what school someone went to. This seems a touch hypocritical.

As someone privately educated for all my school life, I will make no apologies for the education I received. I also wish to make it clear I had little choice in the matter (the two schools I thought about at 11 were both private). So is the boring line that either of the two former Etonians simply a poor, irrelevant form of personal jibe which bears little relevance to the topic? I would suggest so…

Democracy Rules?

So the post mortem is underway in the Labour party. Following the worst results in local elections for forty years, the result in London is looking increasingly like Boris is going to come up trumps. I think these elections reflect the first public critique of Gordon Brown more than they reflect the merits of either the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat candidates in most areas. Whilst Brown has suffered at the hands of the media for various problems (the non-election last autumn and the recent 10p tax row are the two biggest), Cameron has, in all reality, failed to impress much more. An article in one of the Guardian supplements (left littered on our kitchen table) showed how the editor of the Evening Standard in London was encouraging people to not vote for Ken, which, he insisted is not the same as encouraging people to vote for Boris. Few remain convinced, this race has long been a two horse one, and whilst Paddick continues to talk the talk (I was impressed, to some extent, with him on QT last week) it really matters little.

Is this the problem then? Are the Conservatives and Lib Dems winning because of a backlash against Labour? I would certainly suggest so. Having had Brown now for roughly eight months, the relationship between him and the public has initially waned, and then broken down. He is not distrusted. More he is a figure of pity or of mockery. His indecisiveness has been seized upon by the ruthless media and impressions of him are getting worse. The 10p tax row did nothing to help this image (although I agree with the sentiment expressed on last weeks Have I Got News For You. Brown was very clearly in the middle of a rock and a hard place. He was damned for the initial problem, and criticised as weak following his backtracking), but the damage was quickly done. This came at just the wrong time for him and pretty much every other Labour candidate across the country.

An oft expressed sporting analogy is that one team did not win a match, but the other lost it. This notion can be applied to some extent here (this is not to say that the Tories or Lib Dems are completely incompetant, quite the contrary, they have done well to seize the initiative and run with it). The trouble is using the big picture of national politics to judge the regional level. Obviously the various candidates in the various regions have policies relevant to that area. But the big picture undoubtedly plays some part. Without, I feel, offering anything really substantial in terms of policy the Tories and the Lib Dems are capitalising well upon the failings of Labour, and this is reflected in the results.

I wish to leave British affairs, enough will be said on them (including numerous posts today on BULS), and instead look briefly at the other election that is rumbling on. In Zimbabwe the failure of either big party to gain the requisite 50% has meant that a second round of elections will take place. Which if you are Morgan Tsvangirai is bad news. The five week delay in annoucing the results has raised many eyebrows across the world, and the news that another round of elections will deepen fears that Mugabe will worm his way into power once more. Claims that there has been widespread intimidation and threatening actions undertaken by Mugabe’s militia are, whilst unproven, likely to founded in some degree of truth. The plight of Zimbabwe is one which is felt across the world I feel. Most people are sympathetic to the people of the country so ravaged by internal strife.

So it is I am trying to put this in perspective. I have heard the grumblings of many Labourites and non Labourites alike regarding Boris’ ability to run London in the build up to 2012. I am thankful. Despite his failings (of which he undoubtedly has some, but who doesn’t), the issues in Zimbabwe indicate that things could be a lot, lot, lot worse.