George Osborne: a time to shine like no other.

2012 will be a memorable year for most of the UK, but for George Osborne it may be one he won’t forget too soon.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer cuts an acerbic taste with both Opposition politicians and much of the wider public. After the disaster of the spring budget that brought on headlines on pasty, caravan and church taxes, not to mention the entire ‘omnishambles’, Osborne knew  that this budget was not only important to this government, but also his reputation as a politician.

We are now beyond the half-way mark of the Coalition Government and within the next two years, the general public will start to be make decisions on whether this Government is the right choice to lead the country into the next Parliament.

Osborne, no longer the Conservative’s chief electoral strategist but still a key player within Tory HQ, will know this more than anybody.

For too long, the Tories have relied on a cheap shot of blaming the Labour Government for frivolity and economic mismanagement, yet in recent months have been undermined by some of their own and wider economic indicators. Today, extending from David Cameron’s speech at the Conservative Party Conference marks a side step away.

The Conservatives will go into this election pushing the line that ‘things have been tough, much tougher than we anticipated, but we’re moving in the right direction’. A triple-dip-recession may be inevitable, particularly with the UK’s biggest export market, the Euro zone, expected to contract further. Yet, you can hear the calls are starting to get louder on how things wouldn’t be much different under a Labour Government. 

Increasing the tax-allowance, cutting welfare spending as well new infrastructure projects will go down well with the public. Especially the decision to cut the planned 3p rise in fuel duty, something backed by The Sun newspaper. As well as the more macro initiatives to help businesses, big and small.

It’s more than likely we will see further politicking over the next couple years, maybe an initiative to claw back powers from the EU (a referendum?) and new measures to tackle youth unemployment. Both of which are serious vote winners and of concern to the current government.

Ed Balls may have been flustered as he delivered an awkward response, but no doubt he will get his teeth into the detail over the next day or so. As Osborne learnt on his last budgetary outing, the little things tend to matter and he will be more than cautious.

Osborne over the past week has introduced two new and highly proven advisors into his team and no doubt will feel a little sharper in the long run, but he knows that if he gets it right he could be looking at a majority government, get it wrong and his reputation will be tarnished forever.

Lest We Forget

Remember me, forget my fate.

Mitt Romney: Why the Republicans lost and may continue to lose

The fanfare is officially over. After hundreds of thousands of phone calls, tens of millions of tweets and billions of dollars spent on campaigning. America decided to stick with President Barack Obama.

In the hours after his victory speech, many both domestically and internationally are making huge sighs of relief to see the 44^th President re-elected, despite a clear victory in the all-important Electoral College.

Yet, for a long time, many Democrats feared the worse. Many influential commentators believed that Obama was on the verge of becoming the first Democratic President to serve one-term since Jimmy Carter. Perhaps he should’ve been.

Obama has already highlighted his desire to finish what he originally set out to do. It is true this is made easier by the fact that he no longer needs to be concerned about his re-election prospects and can ‘get on’ with the so-called job. However, for many ordinary Americans, the idea of getting the job done may appear vacuous and non-evident. For all the rhetoric Obama promised in 2008, much of his ideals and promises lie dormant. The audacity of hope became the absence of anything.

The economic legacy inherited by the Obama administration was far from healthy. Increasing unemployment, a chaotic financial system as well as dealing with two long-term wars and an ever increasing public debt. For any President arriving into White House, any sort of political legacy would need to be put to one-side whilst dealing with the bigger issues. Yet Obama chose to deal with healthcare.

There are arguments to be had about healthcare in general in America. Whether you agreed with George W. Bush extending Medicare or the universal cover provided by Obamacare. But why was this his focus? Why did Obama fail to create the jobs he said he would create? Why was the stimulus seen as the only answer to solving America’s crisis?

Some complain that the Republican majority in the House of Representatives made things impossible, but other Presidents had managed to deal with this before (Clinton springs to mind).

No incumbent President had ever gone into the polls with such poor unemployment figures and approval ratings. So the question is how did the Republicans lose it?

The wrong message

There’s no doubt that Mitt Romney was the best out of a bad bunch, but it shouldn’t deflect from the point that he is a more than competent candidate to become President. A successful businessman, family man, and politician with an excellent record as Governor, Romney was a capable of winning.

Yet, perhaps the Republicans forget the most important thing about politics. Elections are about winning. For too long the candidates slung mud and created an unhealthy portrait of each other. Commentators point at the fact that this allowed Obama to spend his campaign money during the election, but money fundraising wasn’t an issue during the election for either side.

The problem was that we saw the Republicans for what they really were and it was a right-wing party that did not reflect the rest of the electorate. Politics is tribal, but surrendering the centre-ground can be ill-afforded in any election. The GOP may have targeted the blue collar and the religious vote, but its policy towards immigration, the economy and women saw it ostracise a huge proportion and increasingly important section of the electorate: Hispanics and women. Suicidal when one looks at the make-up of the swing states.

For now, the debate will quickly move on as Obama tries to deal with the impending issue of America’s fiscal cliff but the question for the Republicans really remains where do they go next? Was Romney a failure because he wasn’t conservative enough or was it that the party is too right-wing?

2016 will see two new candidates from each side fight again. Even if the Republicans decide to lead with a woman (not Palin) or even a Hispanic, what’s more important is that they sort out their politics, otherwise they won’t be elected any time soon.

El Alamein: The end of the beginning

World War Two remains a significant story within Britain’s history. To this day, the war is imbued in our political ideologue, our history curriculum, as well the many statues and monuments commemorating the fallen.

Yet, within the patriotism and remembrance, the story of significant battles is often lost. The Battle of Britain and D-Day are far more prominent and visceral in our imagination because they represent what we see on our screens on bank holidays and at Christmas. No one ever remembers the Eastern campaign in India and Burma. No one ever remembers El-Alamein.

Yet history dictates that among Agincourt, Blenheim and Waterloo, a battle that took place in the parched and desolate desert of Egypt remains one of Britain’s finest military moments. So what makes it so important and does it occurrence really deserve to be elevated among Britain’s most celebrated military victories?

November 1942, like any month since September 1939, had not been a particularly good for the allies. For Britain, the hurried retreat from the beaches of Dunkirk, as well as the capture of Singapore by the Japanese meant morale was deflated. Despite the American entry into the war in December 1941, the burden on British and Commonwealth troops was immense. In the East, the German army was advancing towards the oil fields of the Caucasus’s and Rommel’s Fifth Panzer division was heading towards Cairo and more lucratively, the oil fields of the Middle East.

It was by no means certain, but for Hitler to obtain a constant supply of fuel for the Wehrmacht then the war in Europe was consequentially over. The fate of British India would almost certainly be decided too. At the time, it was not only the British command in Cairo’s biggest concern, it was Churchill’s.

Only a couple years before, British troops based in Africa were successful in maintaining their ground and in fact conquering further. In 1941 they had driven a weak Italian army out of Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia) as well as driving Mussolini’s forces back from Italian-occupied Libya. Yet, just as the Germans had conquered most of Europe, Hitler sent one of his most trusted and celebrated Field Marshals to resolve the problem, The Desert Fox, Erwin Rommel.

The introduction of Rommel made a huge difference to the Axis’s fortunes and gave a huge awakening to the British troops. Rommel drove the German army through British lines and within 150 miles of Cairo. Churchill saw how his commanders were being easily out-manoeuvred and losing ground quickly and at a heavy cost to the imperious Germans. The fall and subsequent retreat from the important port of Tobruk saw Churchill place Cairo, the Middle East and consequently Britain’s future war in the hands of one Bernard ‘Monty’ Montgomery.

Monty is now often recited for his tactical marvel in Egypt as well as his miscalculation at Operation Market Garden and the so-called bridge too far at Arnhem. Yet, his military career had begun as a humble junior officer in the trenches of World War One. He had seen the devastation to life and the ill-thought out planning of generals to gain or lose needless ground. Perceived as arrogant as well as a maverick, his clubbability found himself fans within the troops, yet unpopularity among fellow officers. Yet, for his dislike, Monty was an astute and forward thinking battlefield commander.

His plans at El-Alamein were by no means revolutionary, but he prepared well, he knew the lie of the land and more importantly he was able to convey this message to the troops. The subsequent victory as Churchill exquisitely told the House of Commons went down as history as the start of the fight back:

“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.

However, for all its significance, El-Alamein is presented as one of Britain’s greatest military battles because it was probably the last time British victory when British commanders were fully in control (this includes the Falklands’ War). Military historians correctly point out that Montgomery’s fortune was to some extent secured because German lines had become too extended. The British Eighth Army had been preparing for the advance for almost three weeks. Not only were they well dug-in but had the higher ground. Even taking into consideration the events of the previous few months, this battle was not as significant as it was made out to be. The importance was not the battle, but the fact that the British had shown the Germans could be beaten.

Monty’s success should be recognised, but certainly not in Egypt and certainly not more than the British and Commonwealth troops that collectively became known as the Desert Rats. Monty’s significance as a commander must be for recognising that Britain’s role had been surpassed by the Americans. He recognised that Britain could no longer take the lead and as consequence must take some of the pain when leading British troops after the D-Day landings. The loss of almost 4,000 men at Caen during Operation Goodwood, though painful, reflected Montgomery’s foresight. It is to some extent unfortunate that the failure of Market Garden saw his reputation somewhat malaise. For others, his forthright and somewhat arrogant memoirs saw him try inflating his own significance to Britain’s war victory.

Today, tourist trips to the battlefield at El-Alamein are not overly subscribed to. The area remains just as isolated as it was 70 years before. Yet it should not undermine the importance of what occurred in those late months of 1942. Blenheim and Waterloo were more significant for Britain’s political standing and strength in the decades to come. El-Alamein lacked the grace and military nous of these victories, but certainly, this was a great moment and it was significant to how the war was won.

Is social media changing political opinion?

The Prime Minister is proving more popular than he probably ever expected. In the six days since David Cameron joined the social networking website Twitter, he has amassed over 110,000 followers. That’s 20,000 more than Deputy PM Nick Clegg, 50,000 short of Labour leader Ed Miliband and 400,000 short of his great friend, political rival and by far the most popular Conservative tweeter of them all, Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

Cameron may be learning the intricacies of becoming a digitory – what to say and what not to say – but what about his party?

One true thing about the Conservatives is that they have never struggled to find voices; in fact, it is one of the things that have made it so vibrant. Yet does having several tweeting members of the Cabinet - William Hague, Jeremy Hunt, Eric Pickles, to name but a few - really make any difference to how the party is run or how policy is made?

The man Tatler magazine named ‘the most powerful man in politics’ Tim Montgomerie believes so, and for the better. Montgomerie, the editor of the influential ConservativeHome website said that social media is helping to create a ‘level playing field for grassroots Conservatives’. In his own words social media has caused ‘mass decentralisation of power’. He should know. Montgomerie and ConservativeHome – read by around 250,000 people a month - led the calls in February for the Government to rethink its NHS reforms – a story that topped the BBC News headlines – and vexed the Telegraph’s Peter Oborne.

Oborne, as frank as ever, acknowledged that the ConHome website is a new force in politics but asked whether this is a shift to the elite. Is this just a digitalised version of the Westminster Village? Oborne seemed to believe so; he called social media the ‘political equivalent of 20:20 cricket’. As a cricket writer it is more than likely this remark was not auspicious.

And what about the politicians view of Twitter? Matt Hancock, a Business and Education Minister, glorified its use. As one of the 2010 intake’s most recognisable and vocal MPs, he noted that it allowed backbenchers to voice their concerns to a bigger audience, but disagreed that it created a level playing field. He said ‘big names’ have ‘big voices and followers’ online. He was fervent that the party needed to embrace social media more.

So what would success look like through using social media? Does having more followers ensure victory? Does a ‘Like’ translate into a vote?

At this moment in time, no, but politicians cannot underestimate the power of how quickly social media is evolving. Tweets are already setting the agenda on 24-hour news and local democracy is being enhanced by the expansion of community news websites. An MP visiting a local branch of a national charity, once seen by one community, can suddenly be seen by millions. At some point soon we are bound to see a 140-character manifesto, though I’m not quite certain what it will look like.

One group we cannot underestimate are pollsters and electioneers. New technology channelled through social media is allowing parties to target individuals to their smartphones and iPads. This is not a phenomenon only used by President Obama and his campaign team, but also by Alex Salmond and his SNP party. The words and ideas of politicians can be sent to millions in an instant and more importantly, it is working.

It does not change the fundamentals of how politicians should interact with constituents, but it is another platform to interact.

So what did everyone think by the end of the debate?

Political parties are constantly battled with engagement both at a local and a national level, yet now all three parties have developed flourishing and growing social media channels – both official and unofficial. Communications is about delivering an effective and simple message that people remember, but also listening to what people have to say. Conversation is a two-way street and the likes of Facebook and Twitter are allowing policy-makers to have instant dialogue with their constituents.

As the debate overwhelmingly illustrated, politicians believe it to be a good thing.

This article first appeared on Gorkana and can be found here.

David Cameron: a radical, a suit or more?

Prime Minister David Cameron goes into this week’s Conservative Party conference in Birmingham knowing that his job is secure but the lens on his leadership is closer than ever. 2012 has not been a particularly good year for the coalition government or for the Prime Minister and his Chancellor George Osborne. Despite the buoyant mood among the British people, fed by the Queen’s Jubilee and the wonders of the London Olympics, reaction to the Government has moved away from inauspicious to outright hostile. The so-called ‘omnishambles’ and constant U-turning on policies has seen the government increasingly labelled as out of touch and more worryingly incompetent.

Cameron, the Conservative leader since December 2005, has always outperformed his party in the polls, yet even this year his rating has started to flag. Unfavourable headlines about his relationship with News International executives, stories about him and his wife leaving their daughter behind at the local pub and Tory MP Nadine Dorries calling him and Osborne ‘two arrogant posh boys who don’t know the price of milk’. Politicians are used to being lambasted by the popular press on a day-to-day basis and inevitably must accept it as part of the job description. But for Cameron, portrayed as a snake by The Sun, these stories are starting to question his value and what he actually represents.

Cameron for a long time was described as ‘above the prey’ and distinctly agile against criticism, the main reason being his likeability. Cameron could not transcend class barriers like Tony Blair – not that he ever tried to - or have the ideological fervour of other Conservative leaders like Margaret Thatcher – not that he ever wanted to. Yet Cameron was intellectually fierce, approachable and extremely optimistic. People generally liked him and took him for his word.

However, things have become palpably fragile and for many reasons. Ed Miliband, though still far behind Cameron in the leadership polls, gave an effortless and impressively delivered speech (though rather vacuous) to the Labour Party conference last week. The government as well appearing rather feckless at times is making some rather unpopular decisions in a tough economic climate. Not to mention, the elephant in the room- and one with two electoral victories - one Boris Johnson.

So why is the PM being questioned all of a sudden. Why are many in his party appearing bitter?

Cameron is often described as a pragmatist. One not bogged down by ideology and one who leads by instinct rather than manuscripts. Cameron, as well as other Tory modernisers like Osborne, William Hague and Michael Portillo knew that the party had to change if it was to become electable again. The Conservative Party could not remain clinging to ‘meat and drink’ policies of the Right. It had to change and embrace a wider electorate. Some called it ‘compassionate Conservatism’ but in effect it is just pitching to the middle-ground. The ‘husky dog’ moment and ‘hug –a-hoody’ were attempts to re-approach these issues and they seemed to work. 

Yet now Cameron has appointed a climate sceptic Environment Minister and evicted the liberal Ken Clarke out of the Justice department. Who are we to believe? Is Cameron the moderniser? A Thatcherite evangelist or as some people lazily label him, someone who simply wants to be Prime Minister?

To a large extent Cameron’s perception has presented as a reality. He remains compassionate about environmentalism, but understands that the costs of implementing expensive environmental reforms must come second when reforming the economy. Here Cameron’s pragmatism takes charge. Ed Miliband may have put forward his bizarre ‘One Nation’ Labour vision but Cameron remains firmly as a modernising One Nation Conservative.

He is not someone who changes tact on the flip of the coin, but puts things into perspective. People turn their nose up at concepts like ‘The Big Society’ but they truly still remain in the Government’s plans and are taking shape, but like most things the economy must come first. Cameron is fully aware that he must balance the issue of the economy before anything else.

In his two and half years as Prime Minister, under huge economic constraints – more than anyone could have anticipated - he has still managed to perform huge reforms in areas like education, welfare, localism and planning – the Downing Street policy room does not lay dormant – all driven by the Prime Minister himself.

Advisors know that when headlines are bad and polls forecast an undesirable outcome it is easy to draw back to your comfort zone. There may be pressure from certain voices within and new think-tanks such as Conservative Voice calling for Cameron to move right, but that would be profligate. The country remains conservative on issues like law and order, welfare and tax, but the centre has by no means shifted in this Parliament. The recent reshuffle was important to freshen up the ranks and introduce new ideas, but strategically there has been no great shift. Cameron remains in the centre and that is where he intends to remain.

When Cameron approaches the platform on Tuesday he does not need to be like Miliband, in fact far from that. Cameron needs to be bullish and affirm the good this government has done and what is continuing to do. It is not about changing message, it is about ensuring about rebuilding the narrative and pushing for electoral success in 2015. Cameron and Osborne know this because if they fail, they’ll both be gone.

Leveson: a new era for British newspapers?

The police investigation into phone-hacking by the now defunct News of the World newspaper is a story that just won’t go away. This week saw the first court appearance of its former editor Rebekah Brooks, one of 23 people currently being investigated by 45 police officers under the London Met’s Operation Weeting. With costs already exceeding £40 million and with an estimated 6,349 potential victims to investigate, it is likely that the legal settlements are likely to extend into the years ahead.

Yet to what extent is the British public aware of its repercussions? The Leveson Inquiry, set up by Prime Minister David Cameron to examine the culture, practices of the British press appeared to many as a forum for famous people to explain how the press had disrupted their lives. The testimonies of victims like Sienna Miller and Steve Coogan, to newspaper insiders like Piers Morgan and most notably Rupert Murdoch provided an interesting examination and on occasion devilish detail, but for the public as a whole, it did no more.

Yet, this November, Lord Justice Leveson will provide a report into his findings and more notably some policy suggestions into how the British press should be run.

Lord Justice Levson - will his findings bear fruit? (Telegraph)

Press freedom is perhaps not one of the most exhilarating of topics, but it does represent one of the fundamental principles of an open democracy. To the proprietors and editors, any statutory rule in place which governed how UK media is legislated would be deemed an infringement on the rights on the freedom of the press. Most people accept this argument; Britain would not want to be seen as the only country in Western Europe with restrictions on what the press can and cannot print.

However; it is frankly clear that the current parameters in place do not work. The Press Complaints Commission (PCC), a self-governing body, has been hopelessly inadequate in addressing genuine complaints and policing predatory journalism. In fact, Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Express and The Daily Star, two newspapers with a combined daily circulation of around 1.3 million copies, never signed up to it. The newspaper industry may seethe at any possibility of government intervention but for too long it has been poor at doing the fundamentals itself.

Some commentators said that the finger cannot wholly be pointed at the newspaper industry. For some, the sensationalist agenda many newspapers took was subject to its audience. The British public for a long time found the trivialities of minor celebrities part of their daily discourse. The newspaper editors were more than happy to meet these demands. Yet if you take into consideration that newspaper circulation in the UK has been declining since the 1960s, then the argument becomes flawed.

As social and cultural habits evolved, more and more people got their news on television or radio. For newspaper editors, taking more risks and providing even juicier scandals was a way of negating this loss. Setting the agenda and driving comment was taken at any cost, even if it meant hacking into the phone of a missing-later-murdered schoolgirl. It should not detract from the quality of parts of the British newspaper industry, but the levels that many editors sunk to, revealed the nadir of quality journalism.

The cases of the past few weeks have highlighted these inadequacies. Firstly, the report into the Hillsborough disaster showed journalism at its worse and the poor habits that defamed the memories of 96 innocent fans over 23 years ago. Secondly, the printing of the topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge. Although not printed in any UK publication, it shows the extent that people will go to make a story.

A landscape with a statutory framework would perhaps not be as draconian as it sounds, but would certainly intend journalists to remodel how they approach stories. For many, who for years were hounded by journalists looking for a simple story, it is a case of accountability rather than state intervention.

All newspapers and most politicians would not be in favour of statutory regulation, mainly because they do not believe it is in the State’s interest to be involved in policing such matters. The question left over is to what extent are the press capable at looking after themselves? Historical precedent suggests not, and reform of an internal system would simply delay further mischief in years to come.

It is unlikely to become a vote winning strategy, nor losing, but at the same time the public are fully aware of the unfairness that some news organisations have been involved in.

Newspapers are not the same types of institutions they were 10 or even 50 years ago. Not only must they face the challenges of the digital age, as well as the competition of the licence fee but they must learn to adapt to climate of new forms of journalism. Leveson’s suggestions may be overruled and the PCC ultimately strengthened, but it still does not deflect that newspapers must adapt both culturally and economically or its printing presses will be seriously overhauled or stopped.

South Africa: A fading rainbow?

Democracy is not an easy thing to do. It is not something that can be implemented over night nor does the ability to vote mean that things will immediately turn out for the better. For democracy to work, institutions need to be in place and civil society must work together to grow something organically.

Notions of idealism have often ignored the fundamentals of rationalism and pragmatism. In effect, just because something may seem right, it doesn’t mean it is going to work. To a large extent, this forms the building blocks of modern Conservatism and many of the views of the 18^th century politician Edmund Burke. Societies don’t become something overnight, they evolve through history and culture. The lessons of revolution and visionary leaders have often led to mass murder and the brutality of totalitarian regimes.

The problem with democracy is that when it is in place, citizens expect results immediately. Yet, when things don’t, old habits often die hard. One only has to look at Russia. Western critics of the current Russian leadership may have some salient points regarding Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian style, yet let us remember that democracy as we know it has never existed there at all. Before Stalin and Lenin, Russia was ruled by hereditary Tsars. Authoritarianism and the security blanket of socialism are the systems that Russians know; it may be some time before the framework of democracy beds-in.

(NY Times)

The same can be said of South Africa. The pressure for the country to flourish remains intense, almost on the verge of burdensome. The peaceful legacy of Nelson Mandela’s leadership was a platform for countries overcoming long legacies of discrimination to aspire to, any step backward is deemed a desecration of Mandela’s legacy.

The current crisis involving the South Africa questions not only the stability of the economy, but the essence of its democracy. The shooting and subsequent killings of protesting miners at a platinum mine near Rustenburg asks not only questions of the police, but questions about politics and society.

Since 16 August, South Africa’s platinum mines have become inoperable. Mass demonstrations by several unions have prevented workers returning to the pits and have put future operations in doubt. The protests have continued to gain momentum and not just in Rustenburg, miners from across the country have joined in wild-cat strikes. The return of the banished former ANC Youth Leader Julius Malema has only stoked the fire further.

Malema is no stranger to controversy. A fierce critic of South Africa’s current leadership, Malema has openly stated his admiration and friendship of Zimbabwe’s ageing tyrant Robert Mugabe, discredited the Government of Botswana and called for the South African mining sector to be renationalised. The 31-year-old raised headlines initially for singing the infamous ‘Shoot the Boer’ at ANC rallies, Boer being the white farmers who settled in South Africa in the 17^th and 18^th century, now a looser term for white South Africans. In April 2012, Malema was finally banned for calling President Zuma a dictator. Yet, it does not appear to have curtailed his opinions. Malema this week was talking to the South African army, in what has been perceived as a threat to national security.

Malema's speeches draw in the masses (Guardian)

Whilst Malema’s rhetoric can be deemed as absurd and opportunistic, to what extent does it echo with many of the workers in South Africa’s mining community? Since the end of Apartheid, are they materially better off? Life expectancy has dropped to 52 years old, over a tenth of the population is living with HIV, on top of poor educational standards, crime remains an inherent problem with high murder and violent crime rates. Figures also put the unemployment rate at 25%, though many believe it to be around 40%. Has freedom from Apartheid brought opportunity? For the masses living in black townships, how many would argue that much has changed?

Whilst many poor black South Africans have suffered, the political elite have prospered. 100 years since the ANC was born, to what extent does it really represent its constituents? Why has it introduced a secrecy law that critics believe to be akin to Apartheid-era politics. Why were the miners in Rustenburg arrested under an obscure Apartheid law?

South Africa has struggled like any country whilst it attempted to re-emerge from its bleak past. South Africa is held up as a beacon because what was enshrined in its constitution made it the world’s most equal society. Yet the strikes and gaps in wealth tell another story. A new black elite has managed to develop from the seeds of freedom. From what should have been an opportunity for liberation and new beginnings has led to greed, corruption and a failure of the masses. Whilst the miners may return to work this week, what remains is a seriously inequal society and the fault lines that will only become wider.

Lance Armstrong: It was more than the bike.

As London’s carnival of sport comes to an end with the closing ceremony of the Paralympics, the city will close the curtain to what will be seen as a defining summer not only for sport, but for the nation as a whole. Team GB’s success in harnessing the public’s attention and its ability to capture medals, many of them gold, will ensure that the London Olympics will be recognised as the most success modern games on record.

Even the achievements of our Paralympians have exceeded expectations. The British public have filled out the arenas and have continued to enjoy the relentless success. Many commentators are arriving at the belief that all athletes should be held as equals, despite any physical or mental handicap. And, whilst the athletes would prefer journalists to ask questions about their training and their hopes for the games, for most, it would be odd not to ask about their disability. This year’s games have seen injured members of the armed forces to a survivor from the 7 July terrorist bombings in London; all with unique and harrowing stories.

Whilst we marvel and are inspired by their success, a man who overcame his own challenges and rose to the top, inspiring millions along the way, has seen his reputation dissipate before him. Lance Armstrong, the cancer surviving cyclist, who went on to win Tour de France seven times, announced in August that he would not be challenging charges made by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) in relation to doping offences during his cycling career. In doing so, Armstrong has been banned for life from the sport and all his successes, including medals and victories, will be stricken from the record books.

The subsequent press release from Armstrong signalled that he had spent his entire professional life fighting against doubters and doomsayers and that ‘enough is enough’. Armstrong felt that the ensuing investigations and allegations were having an effect on his family life and towards the work of his foundation. This in effect was not a confession of guilt, but a submission to the investigation.

Yet, as most involved in the sport point out, this is very un-Armstrong like. The Texan was renowned for his combative spirit, as well determination to take on obstacles. He fought his battle with cancer as he did when ascending the Alps; with the ultimate goal of winning. Why then is he suddenly stopping the pursuit?

It is likely that the investigations will uncover the scale of doping, not only committed by Armstrong, but by the whole US Postal Service team – maybe wider. Examinations and testimonies will apparently reveal that Armstrong was part of cycling’s dirty secret. Sport’s ultimate survivor did not possess superhuman qualities, but was tainted like many of others in the sport. Perhaps the prospect of seeing these allegations thrown at him in the courtroom was a step too far?

Undoubtedly, Armstrong will remain defiant despite what is thrown at him. Beyond witness testimony, there is no scientific proof of his guilt.

And it is that defiance which ultimately prevents Armstrong from saying anything further.

Anyone who has read his first autobiography ‘It’s Not About the Bike’, would not be moved by the American’s overcoming of cancer. His subsequent Livestrong foundation has helped raise millions of pounds and much more in awareness of the disease. Armstrong’s philosophy was that anyone can beat cancer and who knows how many it inspired in their own fight. This is perhaps where his reluctance-cum-intransigence stems from. Perhaps Armstrong feels that a confession of guilt would undermine his beliefs and everything the foundation represents. Not only would his reputation as an athlete be tarnished, but so too the charity he believes in anymore.

Are there any other precedents? It is now over a decade since the South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje died in an airplane crash. Cronje, a man who had led the country out of the sporting wilderness of Apartheid, inspiring millions of South Africans helped the team become one of the most feared sides in the 1990s. Yet, Cronje’s reputation was destroyed after allegations of match-fixing led to his ultimate confession in front of a South African courtroom. Cronje, a man of international standing, wept as he relayed his involvement in illegal match-fixing syndicates.

Cronje’s decision to confess all, perhaps partly down to the history of truth and reconciliation in South Africa, illustrated his willingness to confront the mistakes he had made and for the better of the game. His own personal reputation would forever be tarnished, even after his death. Yet people still recognise Cronje for his work to help rebuild South Africa, particularly his work in black townships, despite the match-fixing.

For Armstrong this is not even worth considering. He rode from the front in his career and it appears it is where he will remain.

How do you solve a problem like Syria?

Intervention remains a word that causes many diplomats to gasp. To what extent does intervention become an occupation and is there a point where intervention goes beyond a point of feasibility? Politicians have learnt to live with the consequences amidst the tides of history of whether to intervene within a country’s affairs. The demise of the Somali state was exacerbated by the White House’s decision to remove US troops after the failed ‘Black Hawk Down’ mission. The UN’s inertia in 1994 only led to greater intensity of killings in Rwanda. Yet, politicians know all too well of the risks that military action can ensue. The toxic-effect of the US-led invasion in Iraq in 2003 and the on-going stalemate in Afghanistan continue to poison the well of intention.

For over 18 months, the battle between the Assad regime and anti-government rebels has turned Syria into a warzone. Only recently Syria could be described as one of the most stable nations in the region, yet today it has the capacity to create an all out war in the Middle East. The reports of mass artillery bombardments in the cities of Homs and Aleppo, plus the massacres of women and children is creating a humanitarian disaster. With estimates of over 25,000 deaths, possibly more, is a foreign-led intervention an ideal proposition for the situation or is it bound to make the situation worse?

Fight to the end?

So far, the diplomatic efforts have produced little. Syria’s historically strongest ally, Russia, has continuously refused to back sanctions at the UN. A Libyan-style intervention or arming of opposition forces is deemed impossible. Yet what other solutions remain? The West’s idea that Russia could offer Assad and his inner circle political immunity in Moscow was voted down too. To what extent are we prepared to turn a blind eye to justice in the interest of peace and the deaths of fewer? Do we reach a threshold where justice becomes immaterial?

Syria has not signed the International Criminal Court’s treaty and therefore as things stand, Assad can face no international court. However; it is true of anti-government troops as well. They may say they are killing in the name of freedom, but no one can deny the massacres that have taken place on either side. The original protests that led to children having their fingernails removed have led to torture and summary executions. What they may perceive as ‘natural justice’ on the battlefield cannot be translated as humanly dignified. The country is systematically combusting, as are the rules that most humans would see as sacred.

From a diplomatic perspective, is it simple to purely blame Russia for blocking resolutions? Whilst no one can ignore the atrocities, who’s not to say that on previous occasions other countries, particularly in the West, have protected their own interests. There is a degree of old-school Cold War politics. One could argue why Sri Lanka or Israel haven’t had any of their politicians in the dock, these instances on paper show clear breaches of human rights or crimes against humanity, yet impunity remains the watch word. There are crimes and no one likes to see criminals to evade justice, but Syria and Assad wouldn’t be the first to escape the net.

This war, as things stand, has more to come, and who knows how long for. The fact Kofi Annan left his job as peace envoy shows how difficult it is to overcome. If Assad already knows what could wait, then who is not to say he will go out in glory as Gadaffi tried. Who’s not to say that a quarter of a million more people may die through chemical weapons? Then again, if he is brought to justice then how does one prove the atrocities? There are very few journalists and do they have any proof? Not all news coming out of the country can be verified.

Be sure, Assad is resolute but is weak. The question is what do you do about it?

The future of our banks?

The future look of the British high street is a story that appears to have no end. For years, merchants have highlighted the problems of town parking fees, growth of out-of-town shopping centres and this week’s bugbear, the so-called charity muggers or ‘chuggers’ who patrol our streets at lunchtimes asking us to sign up to different causes. The Government is so concerned about this issue that it appointed retail expert and TV presenter Mary Portas to review the future of our high streets.

And whilst we should be concerned about whether our town centres are welcoming and real places of enterprise, we should be ready to adapt to the new brands we will see from day-to-day. Among the new pawnbrokers and discount stores that have taken over the empty shells, we will also be seeing new faces in the banking industry.

Last week Marks & Spencer opened the first of 20 high-street bank branches it plans to open this year. Previously the retailer offered credit cards, travel money as well as insurance products, but the move into current accounts and subsequently the mortgage market hails a new era for banking.

Not only will we be seeing M&S branches opening across the country, the Co-operative bank has also finalised the purchase of Lloyds TSB branches. The Co-op, renowned for its ethical banking and high customer service, will triple the size of its business, now with 1,000 branches on the high street.

Let us not forget other newcomers such as Metro Bank and Virgin Money, nor the re-emergence and popularity of local building societies.

The financial landscape is changing day-to-day, but will it ultimately make a difference in how we manage our money and will it have an impact on the business of the current banking giants?

Trust in the banking sector is at an all-time low. While much of what is talked about in the press is a million-miles away from our local branches, it is no doubt having an effect in how people see the industry. The aftermath of NatWest’s technical issues highlights that people want a simple system that works for them day-to-day. Whilst stories blaming bankers for every single flaw in the economy are both frivolous and ludicrous, it still does not extinguish the belief for many that the system only serves the few.

The surge in media coverage for ethical banks demonstrates that people are interested in institutions that operate differently to traditional banks, but it does not detract from the fact that most people would choose an account that gives them better interest or extra deals.

Many headlines have focussed on the monthly cost of M&S’s accounts, between £15-£20, yet who’s not to say that people will be unwilling to pay for that service and the extras it includes? The fact customers with existing Lloyds TSB accounts will not be able to transfer their existing account to another Lloyds branch means that there will be thousands of new customers on the market.

Traditionally people were reluctant to switch their accounts out of necessity, but now their hand has been forced, it will allow the newcomers to react. Healthy competition may begin to develop in the UK banking sector.

And who’s to say the challenges end here? Multi-million pound investments into new branches to enhance the consumer experience can only challenge the existing brands and the way we do our banking.

Banks have to adapt to our ever-changing habits and lifestyles. Those who cannot meet our needs may simply see their customers walk away.

Banks like Barclays have excelled in rolling out mobile technology to their customers and maximising the in-branch customer experience, but is this enough?

How would the big banks react if competitors such as Tesco Bank kept their branches open until 10pm? What is to stop people from doing their shopping and banking late in the evening without driving around the block? Innovations like contactless payments and pinging money are excellent, but you cannot underestimate how reassuring it is to be served by a person at any given time.

The immediate effects may not be entirely noticeable at first and nor should we expect these new banks to expand exponentially.

It will take time to build up trust and reputation, but change in this instance will be good for us all.

Why 'Londongrad' Has Become So Attractive

London will be expecting throngs of visitors this summer. Not only did it mark Queen Elizabeth's diamond jubilee, but it is also preparing itself for the biggest event on the sporting calendar, the Olympic Games.

Preparation has taken almost seven years, and almost £10 billion ($4.5 billion) has been spent, not only to build new stadiums but also to improve infrastructure and regenerate previously neglected parts of the city. With only nine days to go until the games officially begin, the finishing touches are being added as London awaits the arrival of hundreds of thousands of tourists and, of course, the world's elite.

Yet over recent months, Britain has been getting more than it expected. As the European financial markets have teetered on the brink of collapse over the past 18 months, London has become a financial safe haven for many Europeans. Britain's decision not to join the euro has made the British pound one of the world's most stable currencies.

As European politicians and financiers have struggled to find a long-term solution to the crisis, businesses and depositors have slowly been moving their investments to London. For instance, in 2011 Italian investors spent £408 million ($185 million) in London real estate alone, an increase of more than 120 percent from the previous year.

London is becoming a safe haven not only for financial markets but for a generation of young Europeans looking for work. In April, Spain, the latest country to become embroiled in the financial crisis, announced figures that youth employment exceeded 50 percent Even wealthy French may be tempted to cross the Channel if Socialist President Francois Hollande raises taxes.

Yet only a few years ago, the city was associated with the wealth of Russian political dissidents. Russian billionaires bought up mansions and real estate in some of the city's most sought-after districts. Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, estimates count almost 400,000 Russian expats calling London home. So many, in fact, that the city was jokingly christened Moscow-on-Thames. British newspapers readily run stories regarding the size of Russian billionaires and their yachts.

Famous British institutions have been bought up by wealthy Russians. The Independent and London Evening Standard newspapers were bought by financier Alexander Lebedev, and Chelsea football club was bought in 2003 by Roman Abramovich. Late last year, Abramovich was taken to court in London by another Russian billionaire businessman, Boris Berezovsky, over allegations of breach of trust. And last week, Michael Cherney brought a lawsuit against rival oligarch Oleg Deripaska. The city could easily be the set of a Russian soap opera.

So is this a downward trend and an expectation of things to come? Should Londoners expect fewer influential Russians around Mayfair and Knightsbridge and more Greeks and Italians?

The answer is probably no. Despite this new influx, economists believe the movement of cash from southern Europe is most likely to be a short-term trend. Investment from Moscow and beyond is here for the distance, and it is moving beyond the auction and art houses.

The news that President Vladimir Putin is sending Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to the opening of the Olympics perhaps is an indicator of things to come. Relations between the Kremlin and Downing Street have been frosty since the 2006 killing of Alexander Litvinenko, which many believe was committed by Federal Security Service agents on British soil. British Prime Minister David Cameron talked about rebuilding the relationship during his visit to Russia last year, but the re-election of Putin is unlikely to see relations thaw any time soon.

U.S. economists Nouriel Roubini and Ian Bremmer's damning analysis of the Russian economy can only suggest that London may be seeing more Russian emigration and capital flows. Endemic corruption and poor social care make the possibilities of a future in Russia unlikely for many. According to a June VTsIOM survey, 20 percent of Russians are considering emigrating, their likely destinations being the United States, Canada and the European Union.

Yet it is not only a brain drain. Figures from Russia's Central Bank show that capital flight is expected to exceed $80 billion in 2012. These figures apparently accelerated on the news of Putin's re-election.

So why do so many Russians choose London? Despite the fact that Britain's economy is also suffering from the global slowdown, London has managed to retain its AAA rating from international credit agencies. In addition, economic and tax factors are favorable, and immigration laws are slightly looser than they are in other Western financial centers.

What's more, high-net-worth Russians are increasingly branching out beyond London's city limits. The leafy and affluent areas of Surrey and Berkshire, with their mansions, huge gardens and private schools, are now seen as just as attractive as Belgravia and Sloane Square. "Londongrad" is quickly expanding, and Britain will happily take its tax revenue.

During the upcoming Olympic Games, when Yelena Isinbayeva competes for gold in the pole vault, she may be in a foreign city, but she may well have the home-crowd advantage.

This article first appeared in the Moscow Times.

Debt and football: writing off the Greeks

Good news stories are something of a premium in Greece at the moment. Last night’s victory over Russia in Warsaw at the European Championships made it hard for any football supporter not to be delighted for the tournament’s rank outsiders. The energy and celebrations at the end of the game sent the thousands of Greeks fans in the stadium into ecstasy, whilst much of the country greeted the news in the same way back home.

Yet, this is far removed from the shock and optimism after the country’s victory in Euro 2004. Greece was a founding member of the Euro zone economy, its people were becoming wealthier and EU money was investing in capital projects that would help improve the way of life. That Greece is now a distant and rose-tinted memory. As the financial crisis began to bite in Europe, European delegates began to understand how desperate the situation in Greece had become. Several countries including France and Germany had broken the rules of the European Central Bank’s growth and stability pact. The pact stated that a country’s budget deficit should not exceed 3% of its GDP and its national debt should not exceed 60 per cent of GDP. Little did they know how Greece managed to stay in between the lines.

Captain Karagounis

Even when the Euro finally became an economic reality, many officials believed that Greece simply wasn’t ready to join. The underlying currency and economic conditions would have made convergence for the whole of the Euro zone difficult. When the Greek government collapsed and its successors opened the books, the whole of the world was shocked. Previous administrations had managed to ‘cook the books’ on an enormous scale, using accounting methods that had placed huge chunks of the Greek national debt off the official records. Overnight officials discovered that Greece was running annual deficits of 12% with a national debt of 129% of GDP.

The downward spiral has continued from there since. As successive Greek governments have implemented severe austerity measures in return for EU bailouts, the social contract for ordinary citizens has begun to dissipate. Cuts to the public sector, higher taxes as well the inability to feed their families has seen Greeks take the streets on a daily basis. News footage no longer depicts Athens as the birthplace of democracy, but a city defiled with graffiti and polluted with tear gas. The language that invented the words crisis, chaos and catastrophe has brought them to life.

Panic on the streets of Athens.

The Greeks inability to trust any politician or economist makes its long term future even more indecisive. Since the crisis unfolded, over 10 per cent of the population has emigrated in search of work and most likely a settled life. With them, they have taken their money. Over a third of Greek bank deposits have left the country since the crisis began, €9 billion has left since the beginning of the year.

It is unsurprising then that many have turned to alternative parties in the recent elections. Not only has the far-right party Golden Dawn managed to generate great support, but the radical left party Syriza has taken votes away from the tradition socialist party Pasok. Syriza, led by its charismatic and young leader Alexis Tsipras has vowed that Greece will remain in the Euro but stop the austerity measures by reneging on its outstanding debt. A victory for Syriza in the re-run of last month’s general election is more than likely to be the first step of Greece leaving the Euro zone.

Yet how rational can the Greeks be at a time like this? Many have been unemployed for over two years, whereas those in work have not been paid for months. They are seeing all around them that a country in Western Europe has become destitute and suffering affliction that you would only associate with a war-torn nation. Suicide and food kitchens are part of the daily routine. Any political party that gives them a glimmer of hope is bound to cajole them to vote that way. Yet it is an entire fantasy. Greeks long to remain in the Euro because it once gave them everything they wanted, yet remaining in it would entirely undermine their recovery. The Syriza party may be acting out of goodwill, with a hue of opportunism, yet even they wouldn’t be able to remain in the EU without paying their debts. It would only lead to other debt-ridden countries in the Euro zone to doing the same, pushing the overall picture in the wrong direction.

The problem beyond both inside and outside of Greece is the fact no one is certain of what will happen next. The recent bail out of Spanish banks pushed Spanish and Italian bond yields to historical highs. The EU Troika may have finally laid down contingency plans for future crises, but inevitably they have acted too little and too late. If Greece falls then the economically uncompetitive Italy and Spain are bound to fall next, bringing down the already bailed out Irish and Portuguese. Capital flight may have created a safe haven in the non-Euro member UK, but its banks are heavily indebted to Spanish and Italian banks, who’s not to say that the UK could fall into another deep financial crisis as well?

The questions surrounding Euro bonds seem futile, they may avert short term crises, but they do not underwrite the fundamental problems that these countries face. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel is increasingly becoming isolated as world and EU leaders ask her to react, whilst her own country feels that their prudence should not be sacrificed for feckless southerners. If the Germans put forward the bulk of an EU firewall would it do anything or is it too late? Would a Greek return to the drachma see an instant return to growth or would it lead to high inflation. These are all the questions that no one seems to have the answer to.

The only thing that is certain is Greece will play Germany in the quarter-finals. Who will win? I’m not sure. We thought Greece would leave earlier, but they seem to have a knack of hanging on and causing a bit of damage. The football may be important to most, but Monday’s results will have implications for us all.

England expects?

The politics of following the English national team appears to get stranger and stranger as each tournament approaches. Not since 1966 has England managed to win a major international trophy and despite coming close on one or two occasions, most notably in 1990 and 1996, the dream of winning anything seems rather remote.

Yet, the English, who invented the game and this being rather noteworthy, appear to have a morbid fascination in seeing their football collapse and capitulate. For every tournament they enter, the whole country expects them to go and win it; this is despite the severe technical deficiencies and sheer exhaustion of playing a Premier League season. It is not just the fans who crank up the pressure; the media plays its role. For example, before most knock out games, be certain to see a headline play reference to Lord Admiral Nelson’s famous adage that ‘England expects everyman to do his duty’. In fact, ITV’s recent build up has parodied England going into the tournament on the back of their twelfth straight World Cup victory.

The 'heroes' of 1966.

It is worth reminding that the so-called ‘Golden Generation’ that infamously went onto win nothing, was actually a name given to the team by none other than the Football Association. Talk about hyperbole.

For many years England did expect, purely because they did invent the game and that was that. England famously did not enter into early World Cup tournaments because they believed that they were not properly devised nor was the FA willing to acknowledge them.

Even the mentality was wrong, British players were often renowned for the idea that running with your head down can get you out of trouble. The so-called ‘kick and rush’ football may have worked in the British leagues and in the early half of the 20^th century, but footballing tactics had moved on. England did not. One Dutch commentator said that his country admired the way the English played but they thought it was completely suicidal.

And here we are today. Less than two weeks before Euro 2012 kicks off in Poland and Ukraine and everyone is trying to down play it all. The preparation was not good. The departure of Italian Fabio Capello was not an ideal scenario. Despite Capello’s unpopularity with the press and a number of players, he was a winner and he knew what he wanted. The FA’s bizarre attempt to find an interim manager and hire him less than a month before the tournament speaks volume of the organisation.

I do not expect England to win, nor do I expect most people. Yet, I don’t understand this idea of trying to subvert any optimism. We don’t need to label ourselves as dark horses or chance outsiders. Why would you enter a tournament without thinking you were going to win it? You don’t go to a strip club to enjoy the furnishings.

Tournament success is about preparation and a spot of luck, for too long the conversation was ‘we invented the game so we’ll win it’ and later it became ‘we’ve got the best league in the world so we’ll win it’. Two remarkable truisms that have no real logic. 

If England ever do win a tournament it will require hard work and good players, but it will mainly require ideas and knowledge. The FA’s previous solutions of throwing money at the problem will add nothing further disappointment. Let’s hope, but not get ahead of ourselves.

David Cameron: Be bold or blow it.

It is said that the unwritten rule in 10 Downing Street is not to mention to Prime Minister David Cameron why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority in 2010. Going by these standards it may be wise if ever in the Treasury not to mention the 2012 spring budget to George Osborne. Two months have passed since the chancellor delivered his now infamous budget and it has brought the government nothing but negative headlines ever since.

Not only did the Conservatives take a kicking in the recent local elections, but so have many of its ministers. Home Secretary Theresa May managed to get her days wrong when trying to finally deport radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, Sayeeda Warsi is the latest politician to be accused of fiddling her expenses. Not to mention the elephant in the room involving the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and his relationship with News International.

Happier times...

I suspect the chancellor; also the Conservative’s chief electoral strategist could not have foreseen what was coming around the corner. Far removed was the analysis regarding potential tax revenue increases or a shifting of the ‘Laffer Curve’, but endless reams of front pages calling it a tax break for millionaires and hyperbole over the so-called ‘pasty tax’. This decision was politically bold and one this blog believes to have been correct, but its aftermath has been managed appallingly. At a time of severe economic gloom and pain for many sectors of society, particularly the politically important C1s and C2s, if this change were to be ushered in, it had to be done effectively. This it was not.

As a consequence the Labour party have managed to take a 14-point lead in the polls with their leader Ed Miliband becoming noticeably better in his duels with Cameron at the weekly PMQs. Cameron, who has always ranked higher in approval ratings compared to his party, has also suffered. Probably the most popular Conservative in the country is the London mayor Boris Johnson and beyond that, people may start scratching their heads. The Liberal Democrat’s fortunes faded a long time before.

Theories of so-called ‘midterm blues’ have been thrown about by coalition MPs, but it’s not difficult to see why many already see the rot setting in. Despite the PM and his deputy Clegg renewing their vows in another rose garden moment at a factory in Basildon, the tensions are visible. Relations over Europe and most significantly the ways to see growth in the economy are causing tension.

Many commentators agree that it already appears to be getting to Cameron. He has lost his composure on several occasions of late, mostly during PMQs and particularly to the shadow chancellor Ed Balls. All coalition members are right to criticise Labour’s terrible economic legacy but even after two years of coalition government and a double-dip recession, Cameron is visibly pushing the same tired lines over and over again. It is not good politics and is increasingly starting to appear desperate.

Headache?

The hysteria over comments about whether Cameron and Osborne were ‘too posh’ should not have been given as much coverage as it warranted. The reason is that at any point, politicians are accused of being ‘out of touch’ from those outside the Westminster village. This was a story that overlapped with some of the previous week’s articles, but the trend had already begun.

Stories involving spin and sleaze are always damaging and became chronic in both the Major and New Labour years, but for this government and this leadership the issue that would be most alarming would be accusations of incompetence. This of course was a government coming together in the national interest. Admirers of Cameron’s leadership have always pointed to his ability to look for the practical solutions beyond ideology and his warmness to working with people. Cameron is best when he is bold. Most notably when he used the UK’s veto over the EU fiscal compact and when he famously called Gordon Brown’s bluff in the election that never was in 2008. So why does it appear to be going wrong?

The fact the economy hasn’t grown in 18 months is not helping anybody. The Tories must pure and simply rely on the strength of the economy to win a majority in the next election; and as things stand, that may not happen. The prospect of another hung Parliament and a potential coalition with the Lib Dems is bound to worry many backbenchers. This has inevitably led to questions regarding Cameron and his style of leadership.

A strong theme that emanates from websites such as Conservative Home, is the fact that he is not Mrs Thatcher. Despite being retired from public life and sadly suffering from dementia, Mrs Thatcher is very much the political pin-up for many Tory backbenchers, whereas for Cameron and Osborne, it is more likely to be Tony Blair. They admire Blair’s political intelligence and his ability to win elections, but certainly appear to have ignored his style of presentation.

Fewer special advisors within Number 10 and critically a weak voice from the communications department are making Cameron’s government appear feckless. This government, in only two years, has been radical in its reforms on welfare and education, but its inability to take control over the past two months has made them appear slightly aloof and the poll numbers reflect this.

Any press criticism can be damaging, but it is in the interest of a party, whether political or business to set the record straight. The government needs to get out there on and talk directly to the public. The Conservatives will not win a majority if they fail to make inroads into the north and Cameron and Osborne’s real political legacy will only be judged if they can establish something beyond this Parliament. A reshuffle may help in the short term, but if they are going to win, then they need to be bolder.

Manchester United: A hole in the middle

If Manchester United goes on to win this year’s Premier League title and beat their local rivals, Manchester City, then fans and players will undoubtedly unite in what has become one of the closest title finishes in recent years. Not only will United fans be happy vanquishing their wealthy and ‘noisy’ neighbours but it will make United the only English side to have won twenty league championships, two clear of their fiercest rivals Liverpool.

Yet amidst the potential celebrations, which by no means are likely, there appears to be a degree of gloom and uncertainty about the future. Anyone looking at the league table may be nonplussed by such assertions. So far this season after 36 league games, United have won 26, scored 86 goals and amassed 83 points. In last year’s championship winning side the team won 23 games, scoring 78 goals and topping the table with 80 points. This is a side that has played the majority of the season without some of their key players; Captain Nemanja Vidic ruptured his cruciate ligament in December, whilst midfielder Darren Fletcher has been fighting to save his career following a chronic bowel condition. The team also had the difficulty in replacing the Dutch goalkeeper Edwin van der Sar, who retired after six seasons with the club.

Yet, after the immense disappointment of losing to Barcelona in last season’s Champions League final, the result and manner of the victory against Man City in August’s Community Shield brought a deal of hope and excitement. Besides new goalkeeper David de Gea’s mistake against Edin Dzeko, United’s passing and desire was impressive. A midfield with a large Paul Scholes shaped gap was fluent and confident. New, young and dynamic players were making United quicker, on and off the ball. After coming back from two goals down at halftime to win 3-2, it showed a more determined and technical United.

The start of the Premier League season saw no relent either. Less than a year after he announced that he wanted to leave the club, Wayne Rooney was scoring freely and the team was trouncing sides with ease. Arsenal, Bolton and Tottenham all took healthy beatings. The loss of midfielder Tom Cleverley to injury was a blow, but the return of long term absentee Antonio Valencia reminded the fans of the depth in the squad. Even the league’s joint top scorer from last season, Dimitar Bebatov, struggled to get a game. By October, United and City’s free scoring dominance saw them canter away from all other potential title rivals.

United's record in the Premier League.

The embarrassing 6-1 defeat at home to rivals City was a black day. No doubt the score was flattering; people forget that Jonny Evans had been sent off early in the second half when City had a 2-0 advantage, but it was no excuse. It highlighted obvious weaknesses in midfield compared to City’s talent. Fletcher was not in good health and Anderson had a particularly poor game, but it opened the questions of why Sir Alex had not brought in a classy central midfielder in the summer. Besides Carrick’s excellent and unsung performances this season, the fact is that no quality central midfielder has been brought in since Roy Keane left the club in 2005. The return of Paul Scholes in January asked more questions than it solved of the previous ones.

The performances in Europe were just as shocking. Last year, United were strong defensively and didn’t lose a game home or away. The Romanian side Otelul Galati were utterly  hopeless, but the slip ups against Benfica and Basle were impermissible. Confusing performances and needless mistakes became far too common, particularly at home. In the Europa League, they only just beat Ajax over two ties, whereas Athletic Bilbao gave them a footballing lesson. What I found most remarkable about the Bilbao game was not the match, but the reaction by Bilbao fans to the substitutions of Scholes and Giggs. The San Mames erupted into applause when the two left the field. It not only highlighted the fans recognition and appreciation, but it enhanced the idea that United needed severe investment. Fans only had to look at Bilbao’s central midfield three to recognise the difference.

A good beating in the Basque country.

Defeats, at different points, to Blackburn at home in the league, Crystal Palace in the League Cup and Liverpool in the FA Cup confirmed that United lacked a battling and technical quality in the middle of the pitch. Paul Scholes’s performances have been immense, but he is just a sticking plaster. It became more apparent in the second half of the season when De Gea, Evans and Ferdinand formed a solid defensive partnership and Rooney, Valencia and Welbeck continued to create and score goals upfront. United can score and stop goals, but it doesn’t necessary mean they can control games, particularly when other teams get their tactics right. I think particularly of the occasion when Newcastle beat them 3-0 at the Sports Direct Arena.

The trouble as Roy Keane notoriously, and rightly, made when he left the club was that at great clubs such as United, there should be no such thing as a ‘transitional’ period. Yes, players leave and retire, but young players should be part of the competition, not on work experience. If you can’t learn and adapt, then you’re simply not good enough.

Sir Alex has complained in recent years about the value for money in the market. He decided that Karim Benzema simply wasn’t worth £35 million and Wesley Sneijder’s wage demands were too high. Yet at the same time, the highly regarded Ravel Morrison was allowed to leave (though this may be down to his attitude) and the academy’s biggest prospect future, Paul Pogba, remains unclear. Certainly, scouting has become much better and there is new wealth in the game e.g. PSG, City and Malaga but whilst United have continued to improve through development and recruitment, it makes it more bizarre why the money hasn’t gone into the centre of midfield. United are constantly linked with the likes of Edin Hazard, Christian Eriksen, Javi Martinez and Luka Modric but what is the likelihood of any these players moving to Old Trafford. There are financial constraints on the club through the Glazers’s debt, which is unforgivable, but also the fact that Fergie is unwilling to spend top dollar for the so-called finish article or certainly what the selling club believes them to be worth. This is by no means a criticism of Sir Alex, as he has been the single biggest force behind the club this season but it may come to haunt United if the title does end up at the Etihad.

United may not win any trophies this season and some critics may say deservedly so. Yet be assured that if they do take their thirteenth title, it will all be down to Fergie. Out of the players, Rooney has scored the goals, but he has not been as consistent as Carrick, Scholes and Valencia. Jonny Evans deserves recognition for an outstanding season. One can only hope as a United fan that if it does become lucky 13 then we will see some new arrivals in the centre in the summer.