Russian elections: Putin in power.

It was the British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said that the democratic uprisings of 2011 are the most defining international events of the twenty-first century. All across North Africa and the Middle East, citizens, who had been shackled for generations by authoritarian rulers, protested in the streets to win the right to be free participants in a democratic nation. Absolute rulers in Egypt and Tunisia have been overthrown peacefully, Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s rule ended ignominiously after 42 years, whilst in Syria, Bashir al-Assad has resorted to turning on his own people. The great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, once said of Russia that its people were deserving of a despot because they did not love liberty. Yet after dubious election results and a forthcoming Presidential campaign in 2012, the Russian people are looking to join a new struggle to prevent the current Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, taking Presidential power for a third time. Two decades after the breakup of the USSR and the difficult transition to democracy what lies ahead for the Great Bear?

The elections in the State Duma (the lower house) last week can only be declared as a farce. An institution re-established by Tsar Nicholas II as a way of appeasing revolutionaries back in 1906 saw Putin’s United Russia party re-elected with 49.5% of the vote, down from 64.3%. The Opposition say between 20-25% of the vote was faked and if counted accurately the United Russia party would have polled just under 30%, a claim denied vehemently by election officials. Reports claim wide instances of ballot rigging including officials filling out ballots and parents of schoolchildren forced to vote in fear of cuts to school funding. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has called for the results to be annulled, whilst many angry voters have taken their displeasure to the streets. Last weekend saw anti-Putin demonstrations in over 80 cities across Russia; they believe if they cannot stop him now then he is sure to be elected for another two terms (12 years), a costly mistake for the country. There were pro-Putin rallies accompanying the counterparts; however reports suggest that many of the demonstrators had been bussed in from cities, unaware of what they had been sent to.

President Medvedev’s decision to stand down after one term did not surprise anyone but it did ask questions of where Russia wanted to go. Critics claim that Putin was the man making all the decisions, yet there seemed to be a greater avenue of reform, along with the usual skulduggery associated in Russian politics. Diplomatic relations with the US were famously reset when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, key reforms began in the military and new measures were put in place to attract international investors. On the contrary, we saw the 2008 conflict against Georgia, energy wars with Ukraine and diminishing press and social freedoms. The difficulty for Russia is that it has struggled to secure a place in the world after the Soviet Union broke up. Many former satellite states like Lithuania and Estonia have rushed to join the EU and others would prefer protection from NATO rather than the Kremlin. With a decreasing population and waning influence in the world, Putin’s perception is that Russia must be united under a strong leader. Officials and oligarchs are happy to accept this as long as they retain their share of the spoils. Even Nicholas II moved to restrict the powers of the Duma.

For ordinary Russians, none of these situations are conducive. Political stagnation, corruption and the high cost of living has seen a poll show that around 20% of Russians consider emigrating. Despite a growing economy, many of the most talented scientists and graduates are moving to the US, Canada and the EU, Russia is suffering a brain drain, the prospects of Putin only exacerbate this situation.

Putin claimed the US was behind the protests and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to organise the unrest. Yet, outside interference and suspicion does not work on a growing technological and mobilising middle class. They want reforms and they don’t want Vladimir Putin to take any part of it. The concerning aspect of it all as the former chess grandmaster and pro-democracy activist Garry Kasparov says, if the peaceful protests fail then it may lead to bloodshed.

Riot prevention in Chicago

The 2011 summer riots in Britain that began in London and then proliferated to other parts of the UK, most notably Birmingham and Manchester, came as a great surprise to most of the general public. For days rolling news brought us pictures of the armies of youths looting shops, attacking the police and causing general panic and misery. Social networks and mobile messaging mobilised hordes of youngsters, who took advantage of an overstretched London Met and vulnerable shopkeepers. The Government was quick to crackdown on the criminals, keeping Magistrates’ Courts open throughout the night to deal with hundreds of cases. Those found with stolen merchandise or inducing violence were given tough penal sentences; all condoned by an unforgiving general public. It did not end there; politicians, commentators and victims debated and gave their thoughts on what was to blame. Most on the Left blamed Government cuts, the Right blamed the welfare state and the general public blamed the parents; whilst the outspoken historian David Starkey blamed it on the ‘blackification’ of white youths. It inevitably led to the resignation of senior police officers and a report to what happened. These riots were the first on this scale in Britain for around 25 years and have led to questions of what is happening in some of our communities and what preventative measures can be put in place. On BBC Four on Sunday was an excellent documentary called ‘The Interrupters – How to stop a riot’ highlighting the work of Cease-fire, a public health group that aims to prevent gun violence on the streets of Chicago.

The communities in South Chicago have had to deal with the day-to-day issues of gang and gun violence for decades. From the same streets where Barack Obama worked as a community campaigner, gun violence in 2008 claimed more lives in Chicago than US service personnel serving in Iraq (509 to 314). For generations, communities live in a poverty trap, the cycle of poor schooling and few job opportunities lead most youngsters to seek alternative sources of income i.e. drugs, that inevitably leads to violent crime. A local funeral leader said that 90% of the funerals he had overseen involved young victims. These murders are often trivial and not gang-related involved inter-personal spats or random attacks, teenagers murdered by other teenagers. There is a code of death over dishonour, which may seem odd to outsiders, but in a community where life is lived day-to-day, gun crime is the norm, hopelessness exists as reality. It is not unusual for people to have lost over twenty friends to death, drugs or prison.

The Cease-fire project is similar to schemes ran in Boston and Los Angeles; its aim is to reduce gun-violence in the neighbourhoods. Using data and statistical models to cite hotspots, their team roams the streets and interrupts potential scuffles. In a society, where violence is the release valve, people are often reprimanded with their lives. The interrupters have seen it all before, they too have been a part of gang culture and have seen their own lives affected by violence, prison or drugs. They speak aggressively to get the point across and to educate those on the street. It is clear that in the heat of the moment, no one thinks rationally. Their mediation is there to make people stop and reflect. They may not be able to stop gang beef but it allows them to coexist and who knows, possibly become a community. In targeted areas they have seen a drop in gun violence between 40-45%. What is most important is that Cease-fire is operating in schools, educating a generation to understand that by taking someone’s life will only cost you yours in prison, they speak of their own experience and the malaise of taking such decisions.

Community leaders recognise that ending the violence is the pathway for a better future. It will serve to create better schools and will attract businesses to the area, creating jobs. What many of these people want but have never seen are flourishing neighbourhoods and lasting peace. The interrupters help rehabilitate people, in one scene we saw a boy, who had served time for armed robbery, confront and apologise to his victims, he went on to find a regular job at a nursery, not on the street. The partnership in Chicago isn’t unique, similar successful schemes have been rolled out across other US cities. In the UK, Strathclyde Police introduced data-based policing and social measures to tackle gang violence in Glasgow. Like Chicago, generations had grown up in neighbourhoods where unemployment, dependency and substance abuse was the norm. The success is highlighted in the decline in the crime stats. This has now become a blueprint for police forces around the UK.

Much work is still required but perhaps what is most vivid in these neighbourhoods are the unofficial memorials dotted around the city. The victims, who died in undignified circumstances, leave a vestige of their passing on every street corner. One can only hope that these will serve as reminders of how far the communities have come.

Depression and suicide in sport - Gary Speed and Robert Enke

The death of the former footballer and Welsh National manager Gary Speed came as a shock to the whole of world football. Speed, who was found dead in his Cheshire home on Sunday morning, had a successful playing career with several top English clubs over a twenty year career and had begun to have a positive effect as the international manager of Wales. Fans, players and officials have all been paying their respect towards a man who was admired for his character and ability on and off the pitch and have been stunned to the reasons behind his death. Suicide in sport is not isolated, English football will remember the suicide of the first openly gay footballer Justin Fashanu in the 1980s. The former Tour de France and Giro d’Italia winner Marco Pantani took an overdose in 2004. In 2009, the German international goalkeeper Robert Enke took his own life after suffering for years from manic depression. In fact in the past two weeks, Peter Roebuck, the former English cricketer committed suicide in South Africa and two international referees were both stopped in time before they were able to kill themselves. Many of the deaths have been influenced by psychiatric illnesses, predominantly depression, but it still does not tell us ultimately why someone reaches that nadir.

When hearing of Stan Collymore’s depression, his manager, John Gregory, famously asked how someone could be depressed when they earned £20,000 a week. A sportsman on the sidelines with a broken leg appeared more legitimate rather than your star striker suffering from anxiety. Society has always had a sceptical view point on the disease, but medical advances have changed the way we perceive those suffering from mental issues. Reading the accounts of many high profile stars, many who suffered from psychiatric issues often turned to drink to solve their worries the likes of Tony Adams, Paul Merson and Paul Gascoigne all had notorious problems with alcohol. Rugby star Jonny Wilkinson struggled after countless injuries and tennis player Andre Agassi resolved his issues through the drug crystal meth. Former Frank Bruno was sectioned by his illness.

Three recent winners of the William Hill Sports Book of the Year have all touched upon the subject. Marcus Trescothick’s autobiography profiled his anxiety attacks and portrays England’s finest opening batsmen turning to a nervous wreck, unable to leave his family home. Former England rugby player Brian Moore wrote about the difficulties he suffered as a child which plagued his professional career. Finally, announced the day after Speed's death, Ronnie Reng’s account of Robert Enke who threw himself in front of a train in 2009. The German goalkeeper had been tipped as the national side’s number one for the forthcoming World Cup, yet for the last few months of his life he had secretly been taking anti-depressants. Although several people were aware of his condition (though notably none of his teammates or coaches) they believed that he was doing fine and on the mend. Enke had suffered setbacks professionally and tragically lost his baby daughter a few years earlier, it appears to have sent him over the edge. As all three accounts highlight, the disease is all the worse because it is invisible and there isn’t necessarily a precursor to the attack. Trescothick wrote of the uncertainty and whether he would be able to face another delivery before 'the beast' struck him again. What makes it more difficult to comprehend is why some people take that extra step and end their life?

Studies have shown that men are three times more likely than women to commit suicide, possibly because they are more reluctant to express their feelings, which itself is a biological factor. Suicide is the second biggest killer in England and Wales in males under 35, yet studies show the men in their ‘mid life’ are most likely to do it across all age groups. This is mainly due to factors of work and relationship breakdown, particularly if children are involved. Some instances of suicide are factored through bereavement and the German writer Goethe’s ‘Young Werther’ killed himself because he thought it was the right thing to do, he even romanticised about it. Though sociologists that there are triggers and changing social controls that ultimately send people over the edge.

Gary Speed’s agent said in his statement that Speed had not been arguing with his wife nor suffering from depression. Yet the world will have to wait for the coroner’s report. One can only hope that if it is depression then the legacy of Speed and Enke will be society’s acceptance of the disease and the ability for sufferers to be open and frank about their thoughts to everyone.

The legacy of Mobutu: The DRC votes.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the vast and troubled country in sub-Saharan Africa, is going to the polls for only the second time in fifty years today. A country ten times the size of Britain, with a population just over 70 million, has suffered terribly since its independence from Belgium in 1960. Its vast reserves of natural resources that include timber, gold, diamonds and many precious metals should have created economic stability and wealth for its people, yet war, corruption on an enormous scale and destitution has left the people of the Congo at the bottom of the UN’s Human Development Index, earning a miserly $200 a year. The current President Joseph Kabila, who has been in charge since the previous leader (his father Joseph-Desire) was assassinated in 2001, looks set cement another term in Government and reaffirm his Premiership. However, the 40-year-old, Kabila is far from popular. Labelled as another African autocratic, he is distrusted in the east of the country and the ten million strong capital city Kinshasa. Pledging to introduce high speed rail to a country that notoriously lacks a road network, Kabila is certain to win through a mix of weak opposition and strong arm tactics. International critics are alarmed that Kabila has abolished any run offs between first and second place candidates and feel that the ruling party will do anything to hijack victory by any means possible, including ballot rigging. So why have the DRC and its people endured such an ignominious past and what does the future hold for this huge country.

In what became known as ‘The Scramble for Africa’ the small European nation of Belgium snapped up the huge region surrounding the mouth of the River Congo. Ordained Belgian-Congo, it became a playground for Emperor Leopold II in what can be deemed as one of Europe’s darkest periods of imperialism. Reconstructed in Joseph Conrad’s early 20^th century novella, ‘Heart of Darkness’ captures the impunity and sheer subjugation of human life in pursuit of mineral wealth, most notably ivory. After World War Two when the ‘Winds of Change’ were sweeping across Africa, Belgium had highlighted that Congo may require longer transition before independence. Instead of the 50 year period that Belgium had drawn up, the Cold War forced it to fast forward independence to 18 months. The country’s first Prime Minister and pan-African Marxist, Patrick Lumumba, was deemed as a liability by Western Governments and swiftly abducted then killed by firing squad, before his remains were put in acid to prevent him being deemed a martyr. The man the West backed and who would go on to rule for 32 years was Colonel Joseph Mobutu.

The rule of Mobutu can only be deemed as bizarre and shameful for all those who kept him in power. A powerful public speaker and strong campaigner, Mobutu was a bulwark against Soviet interests. If he was ever facing political strife then he could rely on French, Belgian or American paratroopers to put down any insurgency and all the while he could rule as he pleased. His reforms included the Africanisation of his country. He became Mobutu Sese Seko which translated to ‘all powerful warrior’ and Congo was renamed Zaire, Leopoldville to Kinshasa. He introduced cultural rules including collarless shirt similar to Mao’s China, he wanted to reaffirm an identity to country that for so long had been mismanaged and corrupted. It was Mobutu who brought Muhammed Ali and George Foreman to fight in Kinshasa in 1974 in what became known as ‘The Rumble in the Jungle’ to raise the country’s profile. Yet Mobutu was the most flamboyant and corrupt of them all. Economic mismanagement saw him ordering crates of money for himself from the central bank and building massive palaces in the dense jungles. He had fleets of Concorde, had a taste for expensive pink champagne and used the Zairian Treasury as a wallet on extravagant shopping trips to Europe.

Like most dictators, ideology gradually blurred because power was everything. As long as he was in power, the West turned a blind eye to what was going on internally. If he ever felt a threat from others, they were either bought off or executed. Towards the end of his rule, Mobutu, like many dictators before him, became obsessed about plots to kill him. He retreated to his palace in the forest and let most decisions be taken by his generals.

The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that Western Governments no longer needed to fancy favours from these decrepit despots. Economic collapse and the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi forced hundreds of thousands of refugees into the East of Congo around Goma. Mobutu, now suffering from cancer, was unable to put up any resistance against the Tutsi-led armies from Rwanda and Uganda, and fled in exile to Togo and then Morocco.

The question that many commentators asked was what a post-Mobutu Zaire would look like and whether it would work? Africa’s biggest kleptocrat had plundered, yet he had stabilised tribes and created an identity for his people. The day he fled, the rebel leader Laurent Kabila declared himself President, yet peace was short lived.

What is now recorded as the bloodiest conflict since the Second World War, and seen as Africa’s world war, drawing in nine countries and reportedly leading to over five million deaths, and shamelessly ignored by most Western media outlets. Many of the belligerents have been accused of invading/co-operating purely to loot the DRC’s mineral wealth, in fact Rwanda recently handed back some money it had made from stolen diamonds. To this day, the UN’s largest peace-keeping force operates within the country, with nearly 20,000 uniformed personnel on the ground and costing over $1 billion a year. Most reports to the outside world highlight the use of rape as a weapon of war, in 2009 there were 8,900 recorded incidents of rape. Yet, in a country so huge, it is difficult to determine the number of sexual crimes that have taken place, countless have been infected by HIV.

The great new Empire of China has also been criticised for its relationship with the DRC Government. A multibillion dollar bilateral contract that exchanges infrastructure work for valuable minerals. Many criticised China for taking advantage of its African partner.

So as over 32 million people head for the polls to vote for the candidates (including Mobutu’s son) it is hard to believe that a cross in a box is really going to make a difference in a country that has a tortured history and hopeless future.

Captain Robert Scott: The worst journey in the world

Discovery and man’s defiance to tame and explore all corners of the earth has brought hundreds of stories of heroism, treachery and death. In London, the National Geographic Society brought together many climbers, who have scaled the world’s second highest mountain, Mount Qogir, better known to most of the public as K2. Lying in the Western belt of the Himalayas in Pakistan, it is seen as the world’s toughest climb and known as a graveyard for some of the great climbers of the world. Since it was first ascended in 1954 by the Italian pair of Achille Compagnoni and Lino Lacedelli only 302 people have reached its summit, compared to over 2700 who have reached the top of Everest. Known as Savage Mountain, the staggering statistic is that one in four people who have attempted to climb it have perished along the way; in fact it has never been climbed during the winter. Yet, like many challenges, we will expect this obstacle to have been completed. 100 years ago next month, it will be the centenary of the first party to reach the South Pole, the coldest and the most inhospitable place on the planet. Famously, the party lead by the Norwegian Roald Amundsen beat the British team fronted by Captain Robert Falcon Scott by 34 days. History will recognise that it was Amundsen who reached the pole first, but the world will always remember the testament and suffering that led to Scott and his team perishing on their return journey.

I have written before about the immense and daunting challenge that climbers make when tackling the Eiger and I wonder whether it is correct to make the same observation about reaching the South Pole. Before Amundsen and Scott, scientists were still unsure to whether it was a continent or a piece of ice. Its geography was just as trivial; Captain James Cook had made some basic map outlines on his travels to Australia and New Zealand, but no one knew what lay inland. The British explorer Ernest Shakleton had been closest to reach the pole in his 1909 expedition; his team were 108 miles short of the pole and were the first to climb the highest peak on the continent, Mount Erebus. The technology at the time was relatively rudimentary and the purpose of many of the expeditions was scientific. Journeys would take years to plan and finance, and the men would spend months in preparation in New Zealand.

In Scott’s Terra Nova Expedition in 1911, the team spent months taking readings on the ecology and biodiversity, plus further months in placing food and fuel depots nearer the pole for the eventual journey. It was only when they learned that the Norwegians, led by Amundsen, were planning to reach the pole before them did the Brits become concerned. Scott, who had joined the Royal Navy as a 15-year-old, ignored his party’s worries and believed his planning based on Shackleton’s earlier expedition was the best. As history now writes, it was the Norwegian’s ruthlessness to kill dogs along the way that got them to the pole first; Scott was unwilling to forsake the lives of his ponies and five men travelled the final stretch man hauling their sleighs. On the way back to base camp Scott, Bower, Evans, Oates and Wilson all began to deteriorate, particularly Evans. Disheartened by not reaching the pole first, it is unimaginable to describe the strain placed on all their bodies as they made that long, burdened return. Compared to the photos the team had taken of glaciers and penguins, the morose and crippling defeat is painted on their faces in this photo. As Scott wrote:

"The worst has happened"; "All the day dreams must go"; "Great God! This is an awful place"

 All that remains of the men and their sufferings is the eloquent account of Scott’s diary. The vivid realism and crippling acceptance of the end is piercing to any reader. In his final entry he wrote:

“Last entry. For God's sake look after our people".

As a man of Empire and Edwardian values, the words and sufferings of Scott and his men were seen as patriotic and were used in the Great War to rouse the troops. Yet many revisionists depict Scott as arrogant and believe his stoicism ultimately cost the lives of himself and his four companions. However, as our understanding of the Arctic environment has improved; scientists believe that a four man push to the pole would have saved them all. The fifth man simply used up too many of the rations. History would be different if Scott and his team could have walked the 11 miles further to the One Ton Depot. The decision to carry on with the debilitated Evans, who was first to die, may have taken have had an effect. As Oates had infamously left the tent, it is believed that Scott, after all he had seen and endured, was the final man to die.

As stirring and emotional the accounts of Scott and later Cherry-Garrard are it is unlikely that such disasters could happen again. The revolution in satellite communications has meant that explorers can pinpoint their latitude to their nearest degree. In Scott and Amundsen’s day it was simply a team of British and Norwegians in Antarctica. Today, thousands of scientists inhabit the pole; in fact many who have man-hauled are surprised by the small village at 90 degrees south. Planes fly in and out every day, and the journeys which took months to undertake, now take days. The land that was once mystic and desolate now has tourists and a legacy of rubbish streamed on its shore. Completely different for the challengers of the centenary race.

It is important to remember the scientific breakthroughs that people like Scott made and the information it gave for future cross continent expeditions for people like Sir Ranuph Fiennes and Dr Mike Stroud. Scott was not simply a man that lived a life that ended in glorious failure, but one that showed the ability of human endurance and mental strength. When Amundsen learnt of his death he said:

“In a career as an explorer which spanned more than 25 years he achieved more than most people do in a whole lifetime.”

Football's money men

Over the past few weeks there have been several stories in the back pages that have caused a great deal of comment regarding football finances and an inevitable look into how the game is run. Stan Kroenke, the reclusive majority shareholder of Arsenal said to several football journalists that the Glazer family, the controversial owners of Manchester United, had done a good job in running the football club. The American family, who bought the club through a leveraged takeover in 2005, have faced opprobrium from fans that have seen ticket prices soar and millions of pounds worth of debt secured against the club. Kroenke, who like the Glazers owns a National Football Team (NFL) in America, said that United fans should be thankful to the owners for their recent success the club has had domestically and in Europe. Last week, Newcastle United fans were venting further fury at owner, Mike Ashley, who has renamed the 119-year-old St James’ Park to the Sports Direct Arena. Ashley has never endeared himself to club’s fans and has openly been looking to sell the club to the highest bidder for the past few years; to fans, neglecting the club. Stories like this are not new to English football, yet fans continuously feel they have an axe to grind against corporate ownership, so what vision do they expect of English football and how is it supposed to work?

Some football commentators reserve certain clichés for different clubs, Everton are often dubbed a ‘well-run’ club. Most Premier League fans have an admiration for the Liverpool club and certainly believe their manager David Moyes has done a fantastic job for almost a decade. In the early years of the Premier League, Everton flirted with relegation on a number of occasions, yet under Moyes, the club attracted quality signings, reached the FA Cup Final in 2009 and most notably finished fourth in the Premiership in 2005. Put into perspective, Everton, one of England’s most dominant teams in the 1980s, have continuously punched above their weight. Yet, the club are stagnating financially compared to other clubs around them. They do not have an Arab Sheikh or Russian Oligarch bankrolling them, Goodison Park lacks corporate facilities and is in a location that would prevent it from being redeveloped. Current owner, the impresario Bill Kenwright, is openly looking for new investment but compared to other clubs, Everton are seen as unfavourable. Long gone are the days when the local rich man owned and bankrolled the club e.g. Jack Walker (Blackburn) and even the modern day comparisons like Wigan’s Dave Whelan are more realistic in what they can spend. Several years ago Kenwright, prevented the club from being sold to a Russian tycoon called Alexander Gaydamak. Eventually Gaydamak bought Portsmouth on the South Coast and with his funding they were able to spend freely on the transfer market and won the FA Cup in 2008. Portsmouth have subsequently faced administration, the first Premier League side to do so, after Gaydamak withdrew funds from the club. It is perhaps ironic that Kenwright has received criticism from Everton fans because he is more frugal on transfer policy, yet the sensible policies are seen as backward and unadventurous.

The English and the Scottish leagues are the most historical in the world and each club has a deep sense of community spirit within it. Yet, through the mass television deals that open new markets to clubs, cosmopolitan owners that come from different backgrounds and teams that do not feature a local youngster, it does make a difference to what the club means. Although it wouldn’t work, it is not crazy to believe that many of the owners would prefer an American style franchise system where clubs are relocated to different parts of the country after a boardroom meeting, the size of the UK and amount of clubs that already exist would have an effect. The issue for clubs is that prize money for the Champions League is enormous and clubs would be foolish not to chase such golden tickets. This has meant selling their history to the largest bidder, either to finish in the top four or to stay in the Premier League. Most clubs in the top two divisions of the English football league have either moved or improved their stadium infrastructure over the past two decades. Games cost between £40-£80 to watch rather than 50p at the turnstile. The sponsors are no longer the hi-tech Japanese electronic brands of the 1980s but from the Gulf Arab states. The change from what fans saw when they were growing up is profound and only highlights the difference new investment has made, yet for footballing institutions like Everton and Newcastle new money is the only way to survive.

Obama - a year to go.

When Barack Obama was inaugurated as America’s 44^th President, he used the Bible of his political hero, Abraham Lincoln, to be sworn into office. Throughout his election campaign, Obama had highlighted his inspiration for America’s 16^th President and particularly the work that he performed during the dark days of America’s Civil War, illustrated in the book ‘Team of Rivals’. As a bust of Winston Churchill had adorned the office during the Presidency of George W. Bush, Obama soon replaced it with one of Lincoln. Immortalised at Mount Rushmore and the grand Athenian-style memorial in Washington, Lincoln was famed for his ability to negotiate with sworn enemies and eventually reunite the Confederacy with the Union after four years of fighting. At the moment of victory, ‘Honest Abe’ was assassinated at Ford’s Theatre on Good Friday, and nearly 150 years later he is still revered by most, though not all, Americans. Obama, now  less than a year away from the 2012 Presidential elections  and with approval ratings hovering ominously low around the 45 per cent mark, America’s first black President will be hoping that he does not cede office after one term and can overcome hostilities like Lincoln fared during his tenure.

It was a moment that the whole world appeared to revel in. America, a country that for decades was torn apart by race relations had elected a black President (mixed-race to be specific). The First Lady’s Michelle Obama genealogy revealed that a remarkable five-generation journey from slavery to the White House.  Fifty years before him, America’s most famous black orator and civil rights campaigner, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his ‘I have a dream speech’ and yet the early part of his prose, which is often forgotten, speaks of how America reneged on its promise he said:

“Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today [Lincoln], signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.”

It appeared the world had now come full circle. Here was a man, in the shadow of Lincoln and King, completing the Trinity. Obama, the community campaigner from Southside Chicago had become President.

For most international observers, he was importantly not George W. Bush. He was much more circumspect with his words; he wasn’t as moralistic as his predecessor and he appeared to hit the right note when talking to his audience. Obama had written his own political verse ‘The Audacity of Hope’ in 2006, a manifesto of his own thoughts. It is true that many Americans appreciated the honesty of George W. Bush and his world view; however it was clear that his perspective was often blurred by American exceptionalism and the neo-conservative ideology, which is coarse by most standards but became toxic after eight years in office. Despite the whirlwind election campaign that firstly knocked out Hilary Clinton and then Republican candidate John McCain, Obama tried to play down his ambitions. He was not a lifesaver, but just had a different perspective. Here was someone who had opposed the Iraq War that had bogged down American foreign policy, he was not an establishment figure.

There have been some high points during his Presidency, the extension of Medicare to poorer citizens, the killing of Osama bin Laden and the general bonhomie has returned towards America from abroad. Yet as this blog has mentioned before, Obama has been prostrated by the global economy and a militant Republican Party/Tea Party. So a year away, what chance does Obama have to a second term in office and does he deserve it.

As any public relations or electioneer expert will tell you, the secret to success is to keep expectations low and then to exceed beyond those boundaries. Obama, who was reluctant to accept the ‘Yes We Can’ slogan during his campaign has found it difficult to make the transition of some of his promises and in turn as received a great deal of criticism. He has been unable to close Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Pakistan have became major  foreign policy headaches, the operation to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico directed criticism at him and the stimulus packages have caused great rancour from across the country. Some states such as Wisconsin and New Jersey have almost come to a standstill as the fiscal crisis puts increasing strains on the American economy and the public sector. Unemployment remains high around nine per cent, the credit ratings agency Moody’s downgraded US debt and the economy continues to stagnate.

Critics have labelled him a ‘do-nothing President’, the man who is known to think before he speaks is seen and labelled as weak. Not to mention rumours that he wasn’t even born in the US. The midterm elections that saw him lose control of the Senate and encounter an extremely right-wing Republican Party has done him no favours either. The brinkmanship nearly the pushed the country into default as the two sides could not agree an amendment on the debt ceiling in August. Although he has been able utilise their robustness as a tool of politics, it seems unlikely that Obama will be unlikely to use the economy as the platform to be re-elected. Certainly, the measures put forward by Republican candidates are hardly enviable (more tax cuts to the rich) but as Apple guru Steve Jobs said to the Obama he was heading for a one-term Presidency if he did not sort out his growth and business policies.

It seems most likely that his election strategy may be built on the better than the alternative idea. Although Mitt Romney appears to be the candidate that most deem to be Presidential, he is mistrusted by much of the Republican faithful. The alternatives of Herman Cain or Rick Perry could be possibilities. If he is unable to surmount past the 50% approval ratings then we are likely to hear musings of squeeze the middle and favour the wealthy, it will be about economic inequality. Though whichever candidate he faces will determine what line he plays. The last thing he wants to do is ostracise both blue and white-collar white voters, a place where he built his victory on in 2008.

Obama has overseen a different type of America and is trying to reduce its footprint on the international scene. He was most notably quiet during the Arab Spring and reticent during the NATO campaign in Libya. Although he has managed to use his stardom in the international arena, he doesn’t necessarily flaunt it. He has been happy to allow Secretary of State Clinton to be take stage internationally and isn’t as convivial abroad as predecessors like JFK or George W.Bush . Americans are used to their politicians being able to feel their pain and yet be the Commander in Chief and ebullient statesman, something Clinton and Reagan managed with ease, yet Obama doesn’t conform to nor want to. It appears that the many of the qualities that Obama came to office with have become his handicap. With 37% of American voters declared to be independents and 14 million currently unemployed, Obama may need to dig into the stardust that brought him to power if he wants a second term.

Dirty money in sport.

Today was an important day in the world of sport. Southwark Crown Court in London found the former Pakistani cricket captain Salman Butt and fast-bowler Mohammad Asif guilty of plotting to bowl deliberate no-balls in the 2010 Lord’s Test as part of a spot-fixing plot. Another player, teenager Mohammad Amir had already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cheat and conspiracy to accept corrupt payments before the trial. The trio who had already received sporting bans from their sports may also receive prison sentences for the duplicity. Though many cricketing administrators will see this as justice, it only opens further questions of how pervasive and corrupt the game and sport as a whole is.

If you do not already know the story or have not seen the footage of the players’ misdemeanours then it is simple to explain. The News of the World (NOTW) and the ‘Fake Sheikh’ (a notorious undercover tabloid reporter) met with the UK based sports agent, Mazhar Majeed and recording him boasting that he could arrange Pakistan players to rig games for money. Majeed was paid £150,000 by the newspaper and in return Amir and Asif, following instructions from the captain Butt, bowled no-balls (an illegitimate delivery) at specific timings through the game. With foresight of the deliveries any individual could make a fortune through the vast, yet illegal; betting industry in South East Asia. Anyone watching the game may have been surprised by the errors, though it probably would have been deemed to be an aberration, yet the newspaper headlines and undercover footage led the Police to the same banknotes found in the player’s hotel rooms.

The maximum sentence for cheating is two years in jail and an unlimited fine, while accepting payments carries a maximum sentence of seven years and an unlimited fine. Unfortunately for cricket, this was not a new story. In the 1990s many players were wrongly accused of match-fixing including England’s most capped test player Alec Stewart, whereas others including the former Indian captain Mohammad Azharuddin and Pakistani captain Saleem Malik were both found guilty. The most famous case was that of Hansie Cronje, the South African captain who had led the country out of its sporting wilderness and made it one of the world’s most dominant and competitive teams. Cronje was a national hero and yet a chance find Delhi police implicated him receiving money to help fix matches. Most famously a test match between England and South Africa at Centurion Park in 2000, after a rain delayed match, Cronje forfeited an innings to see whether England could chase down the target and achieve an improbable result. Some saw it as an act of great sportsmanship, yet we now know that Cronje received £5000 and a leather jacket in return for inducing a result. The world of cricket was aghast at the news and Cronje, who would later die in a plane crash, became a fallen figure and national disgrace.

Both incidents were chance findings and tip offs. It is more than likely that the ICC would have been unable to detect these crimes without third party investigations. This is where the problem lies; the cricketers were guilty of accepting corrupt payments from unregulated bookmakers. In the West, suspicions would be raised immediately if someone bet £100,000 on a no-ball, as one statistician said the probability of calling a no-ball is around is 1.5 million to one, yet in South East Asia where gambling is illegal, who is there to police it? Some arguments have been put forward that these men were not cheating, nor influencing the result, they were simply making a bit of pocket money from a game that is not necessarily well-paid. Yet, the court heard that Butt was asked to rig the results of One-Day Internationals, a request which he says he declined. Like all cheats, there is always a complicity to break the rules; spot-fixing is just as bad taking sport enhancing drugs, who is not to say they would move onto rigging contests?

The problem for sport, not just cricket is that we just don’t know how to solve the problem and this case has simply highlighted the problem. Who is there to monitor football matches that aren’t televised or to question double faults in tennis? Sport today is about winning and money, but how much of that money is dirty?

So I sing a song of hate, Julius Malema

African political leaders have always had a difficult ride from the foreign press during their time in office. Whether it is their links to corruption, war or ineptitude then many leaders are tarred with the same brush. Last month candidate Michael Sata defeated incumbent Rupiah Banda to become Zambia’s new President, yet much of the foreign attention focussed on the fact that there had been no ethnic violence, electoral fraud or a reluctance to stand down, like we saw in Cote d’Ivoire last November. The beacon for African democracy to flourish through Western eyes is seen through the South African lens. After the years of Apartheid and South Africa’s isolation internationally to the freedom of Nelson Mandela, the rainbow nation, is the litmus paper to whether democracy is working on the continent. Yet, the man who steals all the headlines is not the current President Jacob Zuma, it is the firebrand leader of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) Julius Malema.

Malema a pugnacious and part of South Africa’s black ‘nouveau riche’ has gained attention for his virulent views and standpoints on politics and economics. When Malema first hit the scene, what was noticeable was his poor use of the English language, yet his ability to court controversy has made him infamous. Malema has demanded that private enterprise particularly the mining sector be confiscated and nationalised. He believes that the sizeable white minority of South Africans still control far too much of the land and this should be handed back to the poor black population, by force if necessary. At ANC rallies, he famously sang the Apartheid song ‘Shoot the Boer’, Boer being a reference to the non-indigenous white settlers, something that has seen him reprimanded for by the police and the legal system.

Approaching 100,000 followers on Twitter, he has been able to maximise his exposure to the international press, and again for the wrong reasons. In 2010, he criticised a BBC journalist Jonah Fisher after he had questioned Malema’s wealthy background and was subsequently expelled from the press conference. He has criticised the role of Chinese entrepreneurs in South Africa, and last month has said that the Botswana government should be overthrown (though no one is quite sure why). In 2010 he met Zimbabwe’s ageing tyrant Robert Mugabe and backed the land reforms that Mr Mugabe’s ZANU PF implemented in 2000, which crippled the Zimbabwean economy, he also called the opposition MDC party and its leader Morgan Tsvangirai imperialists.

For a long time, Jacob Zuma did not criticise the activities of Malema and the youth wing of the ANC. In fact, Malema told Zuma that he would ‘kill’ to ensure that he was elected as President, yet since then relations have become frostier. Zuma reprimanded Malema for many of his public comments and in return, Malema has become critical of Zuma in public, for example he did not like him backing the NATO campaign in Libya. Today, it will be decided whether Malema faces expulsion from the ANC as a whole. Many point out that Malema is insignificant and that the biggest issue for South Africa is its flagging economy and chronic corruption. Yet, for South Africa, after decades of struggle, the possibility of race becoming an issue does not bode well. The murder of the far-right leader Eugene Terreblanche in 2010 reopened some wounds that the country hoped had closed in the early 1990s. What is more concerning is that Genocide Watch, a Washington based organisation, has highlighted the dangers of Malema’s speeches and the fact the ANC has failed to remove him as leader of the ANCYL. It says that the country is at Stage 6 – preparation, stage 7 is genocide. It says, ‘Xenophobic riots and murders of foreign refugees as well as continuing hate crimes against Boer farmers and other whites have caused dark clouds to form over the rainbow nation’. Malema has been quoted as ‘Africa’s biggest racist’ and we shall see whether he can be stopped.

Backbench rebellion - another headache for Cameron.

Awkward George is often how its peers on the continent refer to Britain. For centuries, Britain did not interfere with the administrations or the wars taking place on the continent. Britain was a seafaring nation and although it dabbled in several continental wars, most notably against the French, it preferred to look further afield with its international policy. It was not until the Battle of Blenheim in 1704 (part of the War of Spanish Succession) where the Duke of Marlborough, Randolph Churchill (relation to Sir Winston), helped defeat Louis XIV and the French forces, that Britain became a force to be reckoned with on mainland Europe. Fast forward three centuries of warfare at Waterloo, the Crimea, Flanders and World Wars One and Two, Britain still appears to be uncertain of its relationship with Europe. For Prime Minister David Cameron, it will continue to give him and the Conservative Party a headache.

Last night, MPs voted on a motion (that had no legal binding) on whether there should be referenda to decide whether Britain should remain in the EU. For many, during a time when the 17 countries that are within the Eurozone and debating the currency’s future, it was an opportunity for Britain to redress the power balance and restore powers back to Westminster. They see the EU as an undignified institution, full of overpaid bureaucrats based in Brussels and Strasbourg, who lack any accountability, squandering taxpayers’ money and dictating laws to European Parliaments that supersede the national sovereignty. Many Eurosceptics believe that EU legislation and red tape is placing barriers on UK businesses and stifling growth, something that could send the UK back into another recession. Last night’s vote saw 81 Conservative MPs back the motion, and despite the vote being unanimously put down, it could certainly be the beginning of trouble.

For backbench Conservatives, many who voted for and against the motion were displeased by the apparent aggressive nature used by the party whips. The vote was not binding and yet the Government sought to kill the bill as soon as possible. In doing so, it managed to generate more press coverage and appeared to reopen old wounds within the party that destroyed it from within back in 1993 up until 1997. The issue for Conservatives was highlighted by many of the speeches they gave to the House during the debate, some said they have promised to their constituents and associations that a referendum was something they believed in and to back down would appear to renege on their promises. The other points highlighted the fact that it has been over 35 years since Britain’s previous referenda on EU withdrawal, and within that time far from the economic market that the EU was, it has become a giant political project. Finally, if the debate wasn’t raised now, then when would be a good time to address these questions.

These displeased members are part of the first Coalition government in 70 years and for them climbing their way up the Ministerial ladder will be much more difficult than in previous administrations. They not only have to contend with Liberal Democrat appointments but with a party that is keen on promoting women into Government, this may be the best way of making their voices heard. In the vote on Maastricht in 1993, 41 MPs rebelled compared to last night’s 81. It took almost six years of the Blair Government to reach that mark and as political scientists pointed out; people enjoy the taste of rebellion and are only more likely to continue.

For David Cameron, the vote became a disruption as a leader and for his reputation in Europe. French President Nicholas Sarkozy apparently told him that he was fed up of Britain trying to meddle with Eurozone politics and many of his own MPs have deemed his leadership as weak. Cameron is part of a generation of politicians that are generally Eurosceptic and many of the comments he put forward to the house highlighted his displeasure with the organisation exactly. Yet, for Britain, one of the big players in European politics, to be outside of any discussions would be stupid. As Chancellor George Osborne and Foreign Secretary William Hague have pointed out, a fiscal union within Europe would make sense, yet with Britain on the outside, it would not take long before France and Germany would take control. Who is not to say this could affect the revenues of the City of London and all the while Britain is powerless to do anything. Britain has an important trading relationship within the EU and is too a big country to simply do what Norway and Switzerland do. For most Europeans the debates raised by Britain and the nation state is something they would associate with 19th and early 20th century politics, not early 21st. Cameron, Osborne and Hague are all aware of this but will be wary of the displeasure it brings among their own party and electorate.

When Britain joined the Common Market in the early seventies, Western Europe contributed almost 50 per cent of global trade and today it stands around 16%. Britain is right to question its relationship within the EU and what economic benefits it provides but we must have a sensible conversation and one that takes in all factors. Most British businesses have highlighted their issues with the EU but still remain reliant on its relationship. As long as the Euro crisis continues and Britain continues to contribute towards bailouts the debate isn’t going to go away.

Jobs for the boys - Ministers/Advisors/Hacks/Lobbyists - apply here!

Every Government is subject to criticism, whether it is policy, sleaze or accountability, every Government will be scrutinised for its failures by the press and voters alike. Much of the criticism directed towards the Coalition Government is the aura of privilege and patronage. Many voters do not believe the mutterings of Messieurs Cameron, Osborne or Clegg when they say ‘we’re all in this together’ in recognition of a faltering economy and increasing burdens on everyday families. All three men and much of the current Cabinet are millionaires and come from what most Britons would describe as exceptionally comfortable backgrounds; Eton, Oxford and a job in the City are far from most people’s realities. Perhaps we are now being exposed to an American trait that we expect all our politicians to show compassion and feel our every creak and groan on a day-to-day basis. I suspect that many suspicions of politicians do not stem from envy or contempt, most likely it is from mistrust. For a politician to hear the phrase ‘you’re all the same’ or ‘you’re just like the last lot’ is nothing new nor revealing, yet the resignation of Defence Secretary Liam Fox does highlight something tawdry and something that will continue to blight how politics works in this country.

Most people would not usually be interested in following the blogs or commentary of Whitehall watchers and probably did not read a great deal into the resignation of Dr Fox last week. Yet, most journalists within the Westminster village live within a scramble of politicians, lobbyists, PR advisors and other hacks, in what has truly become a blur. It is increasingly becoming more prevalent and the agents within the game are becoming ever transient, one commentator said that it is like ‘the pavement retiring to become the lamppost’ i.e. the advisors are becoming the politicians and the journalists are becoming the PR men, Westminster is a corridor of ‘suit and tie’ men.

Prime Minister David Cameron spent time before joining Parliament as a PR man and an advisor in the Home Office and Treasury. Chancellor George Osborne joined Conservative Head Office soon after leaving Oxford. Labour leader Ed Miliband was a policy advisor to Gordon Brown and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls was a financial journalist before also joining Brown as an advisor. The London Mayor, Boris Johnson, was the editor of The Spectator and still writes a column in The Daily Telegraph. Not forgetting Tony Blair who took up various consultancy roles with companies such as JP Morgan Chase. It is all too common for Ministers who leave office too simply find a job with an international firm and continue their work with more subtlety and better pay. The nature of Westminster is that everyone knows each other and the lobbyists will pay big money to scoop any of that influence.

The issue that ultimately arises is how you tackle such a sport, if it is possible. Government is unlikely to kowtow to the Civil Service anytime soon and Ministers will continue to surround themselves with special advisors and spin-doctors. One thing that was interesting to read regarding the Liam Fox affair was that one commentator said ‘he was acting like an American politician’ and maybe it is true that we have reached that stage. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that his father used his contacts to help him obtain an internship in the City when he left University, but it is this culture that we need to curtail. I’m not quite sure how soon it’s going to happen.

You take the high road! - Scottish independence

Wales will be making final preparations for their Rugby World Cup semi-final tomorrow against France in New Zealand. Yet, as the only home nation remaining in the competition, many countries, including England, will be lending their support towards the French and beyond that New Zealand, to win the tournament outright. Sporting rivalries transcend traditional barriers and we are used to reading about hostilities descending across households when city rivals compete against each other in the local derby; but much of the national sporting rivalries have been antagonised from political factions and recently, the greater debate for Scottish independence and an English Parliament. Sport aside, would this really be a desirable outcome and would it really change the way the Union is governed?

For the past 10 years, a lone voice has become louder and louder in his desire to see a Scotland, independent of Westminster and England, his name is Alex Salmond. Salmond began his career as an economist at the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) before joining the ranks of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to where he has become the most prominent actor. Salmond, who spent time as a SNP MP at Westminster before standing to become the First Minister at the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, is best known for his quick and cerebral wit and expanding waistline. This aside, Salmond has continuously argued for greater determination for Scotland and one that can look after its own financial and strategic affairs.

Why would Scotland or Wales want to leave the Union? What has distinctly changed? In all fairness, calls for Welsh independence have been much quieter and the devolution acts at the turn of the last century were important in identifying the Welsh language and culture. Whereas in Scotland the calls have steadily grown, 50 years ago less than one per cent of the population voted for the SNP, yet now in 2011 we have a SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament. Why after over 300 years since the Act of Union in 1707 does Scotland see itself as more separate? For 300 years, Britain and the notion of ‘Britishness’ was distinct through Empire and the wars in which the Army and Royal Navy, drawn from all areas of the British Isles (including Ireland), fought. The wars in the Americas are notorious for the role of the Welsh Fusiliers and the Battle of Waterloo was lead by the cavalrymen of the Royal Scots Greys. It was also said that all across the Empire that for every Englishman there were ten Scotsman – building the railways or manning the garrisons in every isolated outpost. Yet, despite the link of the army and the Royal Family, links between ordinary families have declined with the dissipation of British industry. No longer, do Glasgow shipbuilders have the same links to the ports of Liverpool or Hull, nor the identity of Scottish miners with the collieries in Nottinghamshire or South Wales. Industrial decay has beset a British decline.

To the English, they have been irked by the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’ that has allowed Scottish MPs to vote on English matters, yet Westminster MPs could not hold sway over affairs north of the border. Party politically it is changing as well, the dominance of the SNP has saw the decline of traditional Labour safe seats and recently the Scottish Conservatives put forward an idea to move the party away from the its southern cousin. The English see the Scottish or ‘Jocks’ as lazy and subsidised by the revenues of the City of London. In fact, Aberdeen is the UK’s second richest city and Scotland’s budget deficit, if you include North Sea oil revenues, is well within the 3% limit of the European Union’s regulations, meaning it can compete without the handouts from England. Much of the scorn exists through the perceived inequalities that English taxpayers must pay for prescriptions, tuition fees and elderly care, something the Welsh and Scottish Governments provide free.

Alex Salmond has a vision of Scotland becoming a prosperous state, a mixture between Norway and Switzerland, an economy based on financial services and energy wealth. Scotland, as Europe’s windiest country, hopes to use the power of wind energy to become carbon neutral by 2020 and no longer rely on carbon fuel. However, the ‘arc of prosperity’ of countries like Iceland and Ireland that Salmond saw Scotland amongst, were engulfed in their own financial crises. Scotland’s two financial leviathans, the Bank of Scotland and RBS being saved by the UK Government and massively recapitalised by taxpayers’ money. Prominent Scots in England like the former Chancellor Alastair Darling said that an independent Scotland would have collapsed something Salmond remained muted about.

A Scotland with greater financial powers, control of its own waters (fisheries and oil) is the ideal that Salmond puts forward. Yet, the indecision within the Eurozone highlights the vulnerability of Scotland’s vision within the EU. After decolonisation we saw scores of new countries come into existence under the premise that life under your own flag is much better, yet despite globalisation, life for smaller countries relies on heavily on remittances from Diaspora and factors outside of their borders. The dream that Scotland will become a country similar to Scandinavian nations also seems uncertain, who is not to say that if Scotland obtains independence then the Shetland and Orkney Islands won’t follow the same path, taking the hydrocarbon revenues away with them.

The relationship that will continue to evolve for Scotland will probably be a semi-independent or ‘devolution max’, whatever you want to call it. One that retains the Royal Family, the currency, diplomatic corps and armed forces (minus Trident). Until then the English will continue to talk about Irn-Bru and deep-fried Mars Bars and the Scots will continue to back the opposition every time the England take to the sporting field.

Ed Miliband makes a move.

A quick word on Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet reshuffle, if you want the full list then click here. What was distinct about the General Election in 2010 was the huge turnover in MPs out of the House of Commons. Many had been caught up in the expenses scandal and many were, like New Labour, shown the door. Commentators have rightly said that the new 232 MPs have brought in new ideas and freshness to what had become a toxic chamber since the Daily Telegraph’s excellent reportage in 2009.

Ed Miliband has decided to promote some of these new MPs within the Labour ranks with the hope that they may bring new fortunes to what has been a difficult start as leader of the Labour party. It is a good move because it does clear out some dead wood and shows to the public that Labour is trying to move on from the difficulties of the past few years, but the issue for Miliband is that he has visibly moved the party to the left. Many Tory delegates, particularly on the right, have not liked some of the decisions Prime Minister Cameron has made this year, but it is visible to see that the Cameron government now occupies the centre of British politics, something they haven’t managed to do in over a decade.

The major problem for Miliband is that he needs to remain left of centre because otherwise people will ask why didn’t we just elect his brother. The next few years will show whether Ed is a leader or the a dud that many have already proclaimed. We shall watch intently.

There's more than one Carlos Tevez!

It is quite interesting to see that the Carlos Tevez affair is still ongoing and will continue to boil over until the Argentinean’s exit from Manchester City is finalised. Tevez, who allegedly refused to come on as a substitute in last week’s Champions League tie against Bayern Munich received much criticism for his actions from journalists, managers and ex-professionals. Anyone who has followed the career of the striker will be aware of his peripatetic drifting across the English Premier League from West Ham, where his goals saved them from relegation; to Manchester United , where he won trophies at home and abroad and finally Man City, where he earns an estimated £250,000 a week.

Many commentators have pointed to the analysis of former Scotland and Liverpool player Graeme Souness and now Sky pundit for his remarks. Souness said: (You can see them here)

“Why would a player not want to go on and help his teammates? How selfish can you get? Because you didn't start: how petulant can you be?


“You chase him as far as you can from Manchester tomorrow, because he is one bad apple and that can spread. He's a disgrace to football. Your man on the street thinks there's a lot wrong with modern footballers. He epitomises what that man thinks."

I think the most interesting turn of phrase that Souness uses is ‘man on the street’. The ‘man on the street’ is what we perceive as the same social and economic background where most players came from, what we may deem as working class – the same grouping as the majority of fans. Yet football has moved on in so many different ways. The abolition of the wage cap in 1961 allowed footballers to earn much more money than previously, the revenue generated by television and consequentially global marketing made clubs and ultimately players wealthier. Perhaps most significantly, the landmark Bosman ruling allowed players to leave clubs at the end of their contracts giving them greater power over pay and contracts.

Modern day footballers are perceived as mercenaries that are inherently disloyal to fans. Yet, who’s not to say that players such as Bobby Moore or Stanley Matthews wouldn’t have done the same in their time, it’s just the framework was different back then. In the real world, people leave jobs all the time for better pay (granted not on the same scale) but no one calls them disloyal.

I can’t condone what Tevez did but nevertheless I don’t think we should have been as surprised by it all.

Party politics - wooing the delegates

As we reach the final week of the party conference season with the Tories in Manchester. It has given us an opportunity to assess the speeches from the leaders of the three main political parties and listen to their thoughts on important issues such as the economy, jobs and education. Yet as David Cameron takes the main stage to address Tory delegates, questions will be asked on how important the speech really is and whether the party conference season adds any policy ammunition to the Government of the day or whether it is just plain and simply a talking shop for leading figures to allay members’ fears.

Party politics in Britain no longer holds ideological differences that embattled a generation of politicians. Throughout the 1950s and up until the mid 1980s, it was easy to determine where each party lay and where their votes came from. The Americanisation of democracy and the revolution in electoral communications has meant that politicians are now under scrutiny for every move they make on 24-hour news. They also have to contend with an all-encompassing comment vanguard, who have a brigade of Twitter and Facebook followers. No longer are the views of Benedict Brogan or Nigel Lawson restricted to the inside sheets of the broadsheets, they are blogged, retweeted and then cited by other commentators. Politics is truly a pervasive sport.

So how powerful are the party members and how influential are they in dictating policy for their leaders? I would suggest not very. Politicians have always had political/policy advisors surrounding them and the constituent base was always the barometer to assess what the grassroots were feeling. Mrs Thatcher’s neo liberal ideas came through the Centre of Policy Studies founded by her policy guru Keith Joseph. New Labour formed under the stewardship of Alastair Campbell – a former tabloid political editor, Peter Mandelson – a television producer and Philip Gould – a pollster who had worked in American politics. David Cameron had a background in public relations, Gordon Brown did not. It is necessary for a modern day leader to be surrounded by a coterie of special advisors (spads), spin-doctors, pollsters and all other sorts of political professionals. Policies develop through focus groups, intellects and advisors, not the hoi polloi. Even the atmosphere surrounding the recent Liberal Democrat conference, a party notorious for its grass roots, was distinctly corporate rather than village hall.

The main reason is the growth of the swing vote. People no longer are associated with the local Conservative or Labour club, for reasons of time, family and changing habits. The local association’s main role is the fundraising for elections and the selection of candidates. Besides support, perhaps the most important thing they provide is information. They identify for whom an individual or family is likely to vote and trends within a community, age group or gender. Democracy is a set of ideas and values, but electoral politics is about getting more people to vote for you on polling day. Looking and sounding respectable and trusting is the best way to get their vote.

So the Conservative conference, according to figures from Conservative Home (the digital home of Tories), shows that 10 per cent of members dislike the Coalition and two-thirds believe that David Cameron has given too many powers away to the Lib Dems. Unsurprising results, you would expect. As it goes, much of the substance from the conference yesterday involved traditional Tory thinking, tackling illegal immigration and repatriating powers from Brussels. Yet for the Tories, particularly David Cameron and George Osborne, the real issues do not lie regarding the Lib Dems asserting themselves or showing the Government to be more compassionate to female voters (they do matter), it ultimately comes down to the economy.

Most Conservatives are concerned about the jobs and taxes and believe the rate of cuts needs to hasten before the burden is placed on businesses. They also believe that any future amendments of EU treaties should provide the UK with an opportunity to repatriate powers from Brussels, but let’s be fair, if slightly trite, you could put a blue brick on stage and most Conservatives would vote for it. David Cameron and his cabinet colleagues are aware of the ramblings on Europe, the Human Rights Act and the difficulty in winning the female vote but he and his advisors will be more aware that if he doesn’t get the economy right then come 2015 they could all be out of a job.

Michael Owen: a bit better than Robbie Fowler.

There are several stories that seem to emerge from the back pages of British newspapers when recurring events occur; and ultimately they never happen. One is that Arsenal should sack Arsene Wenger when the club go through a dip in form (as is happening currently), and when Michael Owen scores a goal or two, he should be in Sir Alex Ferguson’s starting XI at Manchester United or certainly on England manager Fabio Capello’s radar. There is no doubt that Michael Owen was a talented player and can still perform a role within the Premiership, but is the talk pure hyperbole and the career of Michael Owen now part of football history?

When Owen joined Manchester United in the Summer of 2009, many writers believed that with the exits of Cristiano Ronaldo and Carlos Tevez the arrival of a player with Owen’s goal scoring record and experience could be a shrewd signing by Sir Alex, the main question was how many games he would play and whether he would remain fit. Owen’s father was a professional footballer and had a successful career at Everton and Chester City in the 1960s and 1970s. His son, Michael, came through the ranks at Liverpool and made his name by scoring on his league debut in May 1997 against Wimbledon. Owen had also played at different age groups for England, despite many people claiming he was Welsh. When Owen graduated into the Premiership, he was one of many top class England strikers, who all had proven at club and internationally that they could score goals. The likes of Les Ferdinand, Ian Wright, Alan Shearer all had made a big impact. Owen was soon to join this band of talented goal scorers, included in Glen Hoddle’s World Cup squad for the 1998 competition in France, Owen made an impression scoring firstly against Romania and then a wonder goal against Argentina in the second round. Here was an English striker that terrified foreign opponents: his explosive pace, sharp shooter finishing and intelligence off the ball were all destined to make Owen a great for both Liverpool and England.

In his early years with Liverpool, he was part of a side that collected six pieces of silverware and not forgetting in 2001, he was named the European footballer of the year, the first Englishman to win the prize since Kevin Keegan in 1979. No England fan will forget his hat trick in the 5-1 mauling of Germany, in Munich in September 2001. Yet, when we fast-forward a decade, with spells at Real Madrid, Newcastle and now Man Utd, Owen’s name is normally precluded to the substitutes’ bench or the stands. Why has his personal career been in slow decline since that night then years ago?

Injuries took their toll on Michael’s body and have ultimately had a lasting effect. Groin and hamstring tears, plus knee ligament damage changed the player renowned for his pace, to a rigid front man. Undoubtedly, the timings of his injuries were unfortunate but there is no reason why he couldn’t adapt or change his style of play. Alan Shearer, the great England centre forward of the 90s, thought his career was ending after endless problems with his knees. Bobby Robson, then Newcastle manager, told Shearer that he needed to change the way he played. He needed to use his strength and intelligence to run off defenders and if necessary come shorter to receive the ball (something unusual for a traditional English centre forward), Shearer went on to become the Premiership’s all time leading goal scorer and most pundits even forget about this transformation. It was the same for Teddy Sheringham, a player who is most famous for ‘playing with his back to goal’ signed for Manchester United when he was 30 and continued playing in the English Championship into his forties. Sheringham was known for his intelligence but even when his legs started to go, he was able to dictate play and helped West Ham reach the Premiership in 2005.

Owen said in an interview after his knee injury with Newcastle, suffered when playing for England in the World Cup in 2006, that he put on a stone in muscle to protect himself from recurring muscle injuries. No longer was Owen the nippy sprinter that we remembered of old. He was much broader and stronger, a striker who took the ball to feet rather than chasing through passes. Owen still managed to score goals, but not as prolifically as before, and not as effortlessly as we remembered. It was a similar tale for his former Liverpool teammate Robbie Fowler. A striker with a brilliant ability to score goals for fun (he still holds the Premiership record for the quickest hat trick) yet his fortunes were not helped by continuous injuries in his middle years. Fowler, like Owen, still scored goals but they weren’t as dynamic or thrusting as before.

Both players grew up and came through a system where English football was still flawed by its inability to adapt. Foreign players were increasingly drawn to the English game by the money and the excitement, but the tactics or the technical skills hadn’t fully trickled down. Owen and Fowler were fabulous finishers, both benefitted from the experience gained playing in European competitions and in an England shirt, but they didn’t have anything else beyond that. When you watch the best players today, they are quick, strong, intelligent and technically brilliant. Owen is a product of the twentieth century coaching, unlike Wayne Rooney or Sergio Aguero. This is reflecting in the teams he has started against, mainly in the Carling Cup, not against top class opponents.

What is interesting when listening to recent interviews with the players is that they are still hungry to score goals, but you feel there is a great deal realism and acceptance that they both reached the peaks of their careers at an early age, hastened through injury. Both have made their fortunes in property and Owen is known for his love of horseracing. (Tabloid writers joked that Sir Alex only signed him for betting tips) Neither player has anything further to prove. Owen will continue to play for United for the rest of the season and will certainly score goals in the games he plays. The only reason why Capello would pick him is for a player who scores goals in the final ten minutes of matches, some may be deemed this a luxury. Hall of Fame is certain, but breaking further records? Unlikely.

9/11 - America's nightmare

If history is a subject about remembering the names of dead kings and queens and memorising important dates, then September 11th, 9/11, is the most memorable of them all. On that, beautiful Tuesday morning in downtown Manhattan, where clear blue skies and naked sunshine shone upon the east coast metropolis, the events of that fateful day, that left the whole world aghast, turned the vivid blue sky to a choking, black fog. The television news replaying footage like an advertisement, looping pictures of horror and awe. Beneath, within the panic, saw the remnants of a European city, razed to the ground by Allied bombing; a grey haze and tampered soul. Yet this was not just a mass grave, this was the sowing of seeds for a nightmare that was about to unfold, one that would make us all victims. Ten years on, the drama appears to have quelled. The protagonists have been written out of the script. George W. Bush, then US President, is now retired and has already written his memoirs and Osama bin Laden, the poetic Saudi and Al-Qaeda leader, met his end this year in his compound in Pakistan. A decade later, as the world relives the tales of bravery and loss from loved ones and observers, we have a clearer picture of the world we now live in and what 9/11 experience taught us all and inevitably the history books.

America’s response and subsequent combat mission in Afghanistan was permitted by the UN and was backed by 41 different countries, who all provided troops to bring down the Taliban in Afghanistan. Nearly ten years after the Cold War had ended and involved in fewer armed conflicts, this was an opportunity for the world to see the firepower of the American military. Cruise missiles, stealth bombers and futuristic weapons all contributed to the downfall of the Taliban regime and the liberation of Kabul in late 2001. This was a victory for the men and women who had lost their lives in the towers, the Pentagon and the many who had tackled the would be suicide bombers in Pennsylvania. Yet, all the while Mr Bin Laden managed to cross the border and live safely in neighbouring Pakistan.

Perhaps the country that has suffered the most subsequently is Pakistan. None of the men that flew the planes into the towers were Pakistani nationals. Before 9/11 there had been only one suicide attack incident, since 9/11 there have been hundreds. The Pakistani state has become a lot weaker and many of the moderates have been succeeded by Islamists who despise the values of the West and America. Much of the aid given to the Pakistani state has been swallowed up by the military, leaving the education budget with a miserly 2%. Most military analysts say that the problem now lies in east of Afghanistan, in Pakistan. NATO troops will never be able to defeat the Taleban because its roots are tribal and local, just like the British Government could never defeat the IRA. The notion of state building in Afghanistan is impractical because the issues that need addressing are political. When NATO troops finally leave, will Afghani troops be capable of defending their country or will the militants from Pakistan be waiting in anticipation? The war planning was nonexistent and improvised as the battles ensued.

Not since Pearl Harbour had America been attacked so unexpectedly and spectacularly. As intelligence experts searched for answers, the stories of heroism and selflessness emerged from the dust. No one can deny America’s anger and certainly, its self-contemplation of what had just happened; the people who had died were casualties, just like other people who had died in bombings or hijackings over the years. Yet to die ‘at’ 9/11 made someone more exceptional than for someone to die ‘on’ September 11. The circumstances were horrific, but it blazed a trail of American exceptionalism that was ultimately toxic. They weren’t just killing and targeting Americans, they were killing and targeting America itself.

This led to the Bush Administration, acting with impunity in Iraq, without a second resolution from the UN Security Council because this was a war for freedom and democracy. The CIA conducted the rendition and torture of foreign nationals in Guantanamo Bay and other countries. It was a foreign policy based on a doctrine not the economics, so as Americans enjoyed further tax breaks and the extension of social security, the country’s foreign adventures were paid on its credit card (the Bank of China had the lowest interest repayments). It is inconceivable based on today’s sluggish American economy and deficit that it would even consider intervening in countries with despotic regimes such as Syria or Iran.

9/11 was a horrendous day for the people of New York but it now is a part of what it means to be a New Yorker. It was the first event that the globalised world witnessed and suffered. We all are subject to stricter security measures in airports and the rise of CCTV in our towns and cities. We were brought together by the loss but it did a great deal of harm to the global communities. Suspicion and contempt for innocent people has only made some situations worse. September 11th was a dark day and forever the empty chair will always remind families at holidays and celebrations. Yet we should not forget the other victims and the how it really changed the world forever.

The 'Right' of Europe

As the party conference season descends on the UK after the Summer Parliamentary recess, much of the focus will be on the three major parties and their policies towards the economy, education and health. One party that will be holding its party conference this week in Eastbourne, will be the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP as it is ubiquitously known, and its charismatic leader Nigel Farage. Known within the mainstream as a party that rejects UK membership of the European Union, UKIP is often seen as a place for right wing Tories to retreat to when they don’t like the direction of the Conservative Party. Yet, with bailouts within the Eurozone and increasing concerns about immigration, where does the future lie for parties of the right within Europe.

All across the continent, parties with right wing agendas have surged in popularity. Countries like Finland, in the heart of liberal Scandinavia, saw the True Finns party take almost a fifth of the votes in the recent Parliamentary elections, finishing third overall. The True Finns reject the EU bailout of countries like Greece and Portugal and promote Finnish women to stay home and have more children, preferably ‘ethnic Finns’. This was all democratic, whilst across the border in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik a lone gunman killed scores of younger members of Norway’s Labor Party, an institution he felt that had polluted the Norwegian way of life.

Traditionally, we associate right wing politics with racism and anti-Semitism. The massacre at Clifford’s Tower in York, the conquest of Toledo in Spain and latterly the Holocaust. Yet anti-Semitism is becoming less accepted by most European countries, all European countries recognise Israel and have anti-Semitism laws in place. In fact, figureheads of Europe’s right wing movement such as Marie Le Penn of France’s Front National or Geert Wilders, the Netherland’s most outspoken politician both embrace Judaism. Most right wing parties on the continent have turned their scorn towards Islam.

Too much immigration is not necessarily a right wing dictum; you are just as likely to feel resentment of uncontrolled immigration from traditional UK Labour Party members to traditional Tories living in the Shires. The right has always been successful in threading such political wisdom through appropriating the right of the individual and the need for a smaller government. Single issues parties like the British National Party (BNP) have usually failed because their narrow point of view and lack of political organisation, rare successes can be attributed to voters wanting to give the Government of the day a bloody nose, nothing more. UKIP does not pursue a racist agenda, it is libertarian, it believes Britain has the right to control its own borders and sees Europe as a talking shop full of unelected bureaucrats. In the last European elections in 2009, UKIP secured 13 seats, the same as the governing party of the day, Labour, and under an electoral system that is slightly more favourable to them.

When asked about what concerns voters most, Europe is normally an issue that comes way down the list of priority for most of the electorate. Yet, it would be interesting to see what would happen if UKIP perhaps took a sharper line on immigration, like other European parties. The current Conservative Government of the day would have a dilemma of what to do regarding its coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. In 2005, under the leadership of Michael Howard, the Conservatives took a right wing stance on crime, immigration and Europe, forcing Tony Blair to move his election strategy to the same audience, most likely because they did not have the capability of winning. In an age where austerity is king and voters want secure employment and an accountable political and tax system, it would be interesting to hear what Mr Farage has to say and whether he decides to tread on the toes Mr Cameron.

Gaddafi: the madness of the tyrants.

After six months of fighting and over 40 years ruling Libya, it appears that the end is nigh for Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. ‘The mad dog of Middle East’ as President Reagan once called him is defying the calls from international leaders and has called for his loyalists to prepare for martyrdom as he takes once last stand against the approaching rebels. The wall-to-wall coverage on television has been fascinating as the press corps push further into the once Gaddafi stronghold, evidence of possible war crimes as followers prepare for the reckoning. Yet Gaddafi, as eccentric as he may appear on Libyan state television and defiant in his final hours, knows that surrender is not an option and giving up is the action of a weak man.

Gaddafi is part of the old breed of tyrant. He rules with an iron fist but understands the theatre surrounding personality politics. He declared himself a colonel because he did not see himself as the leader of the Libyan revolution; he was a cog in freeing the people from the monarchy. Like Nasser of Egypt or Amin of Uganda he is a representation of the people; outspoken, defiant with an ability to accrue support at home under international pressure. Gaddafi is known for his flirtation with state sponsored terrorism, arming the IRA, bombing a German nightclub full of American servicemen and infamously the Pan AM flight that blew up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. Gaddafi has been a pariah and a darling of the West in his 40 years of rule. In 2009, he bizarrely used the UN as a floor to criticise the UN Security Council and Israel before moving onto trivial matters such as swine flu and the US invasion of Grenada in 1986. Yet this perceived ‘madness’ makes him more dangerous.

If Gaddafi was mad then how did it explain his ability to seize then hold onto power for more than 40 years? To describe him as ‘mad’ (despite the TV footage) is lazy and is an easy way to submit to dictator stereotypes. Gadaffi, like Hitler or Reagan, was an actor. The issue is that like Amin or Mobuto, is when the reality and the theatre become blurred. People in the West often question why these people last so long and why there aren’t more coups; it is the mix of the personality backed by a repugnant secret police that punishes any form of criticism. Under Saddam Hussein, prisoners had their feet tortured with a cane (the feet contain hundreds of nerve endings) and Chile’s General Pinochet used to have dissidents dropped from helicopters into the Pacific Ocean whilst tied up. Madness is used because it politicians are known for risk taking and their obsession, think Richard Nixon or Churchill. It is the unpredictability and mystique of the man that makes the next moves impossible to call. People live in fear.

Gaddafi will be fully aware of the plight of his former neighbour, Egypt’s former dictator Hosni Mubarak and appearances by fallen leaders in The Hague. Or the indignant end of Saddam. Gaddafi will ensure that he does not suffer a similar a feat.

Committing genocide.

There was a programme on BBC4 on Tuesday called ‘My Father was a Nazi Commandant’ which told the story of a German woman, daughter of a Nazi, meeting a Jewish girl, who had worked as a servant under his auspices in the Plaszow concentration camp, near Krakow. The Nazi in question was the infamous Amon Goeth, famously depicted by Joseph Fiennes in Steven Spielberg’s ‘Schindler’s List’. As the programme and the film show correctly, Goeth was following orders from above, but he was in ultimate control of the thousands passing through the gates of Plaszow. Many of them making the journey from the ghettoes of Poland would never see anything else again.

What was clear from the German woman, who had never met her father (Goeth was hanged when she was a baby), was that she felt the burden of grief and pain from a generation that she did not know and from a father she had no connection. She had grown up in a Germany that had lost millions of its citizens to war. There was a culture of reticence, rather than denial. Even to do this day, criminals with an association to Nazi terror are still being tried. In May, a trial in Munich ended following the case of John Demjanjuk, a 91-year-old naturalised American, found guilty for the murder of nearly 30,000 prisoners at the Sobibor camp. Although found guilty, Demjanjuk did not face a penal sentence. So have we reached a stage where justice serves simply as a footnote to history? Have we learnt anything from putting men and women in a court of law to face judgement?

In the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands and Arusha, Tanzania, prosecutors have been questioning suspected war criminals and instigators about their roles in ethnic violence and murder in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Yugoslavia. Perhaps what is most noticeable when we see the men (mostly) in the dock is their meekness, their banality; the very essence that we expect of monsters does not appear present as they take the stand. These men naturally see themselves as Pontius Pilate figures, guilty of accessory but not murder, as academics call it perpetrators not instigators.

This was true of Adolf Eichmann, an organiser and overseer of the Holocaust, who was captured by the Israeli security services in Argentina and brought to trial in Jerusalem. Though historians and spectators conclude that Eichmann was part of a ‘show trial’, (many of the Nazi hierarchy had escaped justice through suicide at the end of the war) this was an opportunity to see why he had participated in the murders. Why did he get involved? What was it about his personality that saw he thought he was doing right? Eichmann’s answer, like many men in that situation, was that he was following orders from above and that it was opportunity for him to further his career. There is something chilling of these men’s evidence, and perhaps it seems naive to account it to a selfish streak and opportunism. Yet, when you account for the massacres that took place in Poland, Bosnia and Rwanda, the perpetrators weren’t trained soldiers or mercenaries they were blue collar tradesman or labourers who lived in a system that inculcated values that inevitably stoked ethnic tensions. They became actors in a play that been written many years before.

It is estimated that between 1900 and 2000, around 60 million people were killed through genocide and ethnic cleansing, that’s around the same amount of combat deaths in World War Two. Men like Goeth, were sadistic animals and oversaw terror that no human should have seen. Perhaps it is too difficult to rationalise the others, they are participants and for no palpable reason can we explain why they committed, watched or acquiesced. Like countries and international organisations. We are all guilty to some extent. It is often easier to sit back and do nothing. As the eighteenth century politician Edmund Burke said, “When good men do nothing, evil prevails”. History dictates all.