Many Reasons, No Excuse
Since these riots started, we have heard many reasons for their cause. First it stemmed from the shooting of a man in Tottenham. Now its about a disaffected youth, joblessness, lack of facilities etc etc. But lets get one thing straight; this violence has absolutely no reasoning behind it. It is illogical. It does not make sense for those who claim lack of opportunity to throw the chance of it away by turning into a criminal. It does not make sense for those who claim to come from deprived neighbourhoods to burn and destroy property to make that neighbourhood worse. It does not make sense for those who claim to have been taken advantage of by the elite to cause potentially irrecoverable damage to small business owners. It does not make sense for parents who claim the system does not help them to not be able to keep the most basic grip on their children.
Are there grievances? Of course. There are numerous issues with urban neighbourhoods, joblessness, education, law and order. But I will not discuss those now. Just like we should be focussing not on psycho-analysis, but instead on reclaiming our streets and cleaning up the mess these criminals have caused. Remember ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’, well lets focus on the first part for the moment.
Anyone wanting, at this point, to try and think of some bigger picture, some reasoning, that these youths must have some purpose, only need to see this video. I’m not going to try and describe it, because it leaves me lost for words. Except that whilst watching it I find myself wanting to find that castration is now a legal punishment. How can we invest in these people? How difficult is it, after seeing that, to make the argument for spending on education, on training, on youth facilities, for people who would do what those in that video did? I don’t often agree with Dianne Abbott, but I heard her call this ‘recreational looting’, I couldn’t agree more.
I love watching these fools behave as if they are revolutionaries, think that they are tough. Then they cover up their faces. They can’t look people in the eye, they can’t show their faces to the police as they throw bricks at them. Cowards.
They have no point. They are not protesting about anything. Their only reasoning for doing this is for a thrill, is to cause damage, is to out do other mindless idiots in other areas of the city and country, and of course to steal. To think that this is part of my generation, however a small a part, is utterly depressing. The Arab youth rose up and the result was a first step on the road to democracy. People are dying daily in Syria as they clamour for the same. There is a famine in parts of Africa. Other areas of the world are still recovering from devastating natural disasters. And here we have people rioting for mobile phones and trainers. And my generation has had it easy. Yes we have had an enormously disastrous financial crises, and terrorist attacks. But we have not had to live through the cold war, with constant threats of state based nuclear annihilation. We have not had to worry about being drafted to serve in Vietnam, nor having to deal with the blood bath that was World War II, and thereafter being faced with having to rebuild nations after global war and depression. Instead we have lived through a massive growth in technology and we now live in a world where knowledge is at our fingertips. I still have massive faith in my generation, however this is a reminder, as if I needed it, that a small number of idiots can do a whole lot of damage.
We do have problems, but the vast majority of these thugs could care less about actually helping to solve those problems. And all the talk of a lack of representation, feeling alienated from the community and the political system, and that this is what happens in David Cameron’s Britain, is wrong. We can make our political points, and talk about the state of the economy, and that chances of civil unrest is always heightened at times on economic strife. But these thieves and vandals care not about such issues. However you feel, violence is never the answer. We do not live in a third world country, whatever you think of our government, they are not a dictatorship, and regardless of feelings of disgust towards the press from the phone hacking scandal, our media is still free and open. I have experienced first hand that the political system, with all its faults, can still serve as a place for people to come together. It is full of good people who want to solve problems. In this country, the system can work, and violence is never the answer.
I will make a political point however. Those who thought that they could cut front line police without consequence, as Theresa May did, should now have been proved wrong, and made to admit their mistakes. Those who think first responders should have their pay frozen and benefits reduced must not think again. These police officers, fire fighters and paramedics are amazingly brave. I know people who serve in frontline services, and they deserve nothing but our continued support, and for political leaders to offer a full-throated defence of their jobs and pay checks.
As much shame and disgust I have for what we have witnessed, this is overshadowed by the immense pride I take in the response of Londoners. We are already seeing sites like this setup to aid the cleanup operation, and pictures like this and this are heart warming. They remind me of why this is the greatest city on the planet. They prove that the majority of people are good, and the minority of youngsters causing havoc are vastly outnumbered by those willing to respond and indeed stand-up to their thuggery. This city is incredibly resilient. This city will respond. And our system, despite its faults, will show that it does work, and whatever reasoning there maybe for any number of issues, in a democracy, in a nation with a free press, there is never an excuse for violence.
The Debate Over the US Debt Ceiling
If anyone needed any more confirmation about the Republican Party’s move in to illogical-land, look no further than the current ‘debate’ surrounding raising the debt ceiling. Here’s the deal; the US government is in debt. They have been running budget deficits for many years, which has meant the amount borrowed has totalled over $14 trillion. Since the time of FDR, congress essentially gives the Treasury authority to issue US debt, up to a limit. Over the decades this ceiling has needed to be raised several times, usually without much conflict. Republicans have decided to use this latest vote to demand spending cuts – not next year, or over the next 10 years, but now. Lets get one thing clear, cutting spending by a couple hundred billion this year will have no effect on the debt. To begin to pay down the debt, you must of course begin running budget surpluses every year, and this year the deficit will be $1.4 trillion. So unless someone can figure out how to balance those numbers, the debt will only increase. Many Republicans, including Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, have demanded that for every dollar the ceiling is raised, an equivalent amount of spending cuts is required. This would mean trillions in spending cuts, this year, which would further cripple an already sluggish economy.
I continue to be baffled as to how easily the narrative has changed to spending cuts. This is something we have seen in the UK also. When the economy is still struggling, all we are talking about is cutting spending. The President continues to maintain his position that we need additional stimulus as part of any cuts (here’s hoping Labour in the UK would take a similar tone) but the fact that we are already resigned to cuts this year is already a victory for the Republicans, the discussion is simply over how much. This should not be the issue. The problem is America has a budget deficit. Of course there are many areas where there need to be reforms and cuts, but these should be well thought out and conducted over years, not months when the economy is still weak. However the Republicans have taken the position of rejecting all forms of tax increases. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and a budget can be balanced in other ways, as opposed to simply cutting government spending. Imagine if the Democrats had taken a similarly extreme position; that any deficit deal must be finance only by tax increases, or the removal of tax breaks, and no spending cuts. How would the Republicans have responded to this, and how would such a position have been portrayed in the media? Such a position would have been just as ridiculous as the Republican’s spending cut only position. The President’s public frustrations with the GOP were once again shown in his recent press conference, and the White House knows they have the public on their side when it comes to having a balanced approach to the deficit, which includes closing tax loopholes that primarily benefit the wealthy. Even such tax expenditures – and lets get this straight, a tax cut or a tax break is government spending, in the same way that building a rail line is – were off limits for many Republicans. The perversely powerful Grover Norquist managed to get the vast majority of congressional Republicans to sign a no tax pledge, which includes eliminating distorting expenditures in the tax code. Ezra Klein notes a recent interview with Paul Ryan, who states a bizarre logic in his opposition to removing these tax breaks. Ryan states that removing tax breaks and using the proceeds for either deficit reduction or stimulus spending is wrong, and instead marginal rates should be lowered. Over the past several months we have example after example that Republicans attitudes towards taxes is nothing more than extreme ideology, there is no economic basis for their posturing. Ryan is continuing to prove that he is no economic realist, unlike what many in the media profile him as. As Klein says, “he’s just better at devolving complicated rationales that make increasingly extreme positions sound like garden variety policy points”. Thankfully, there are still a few Republicans willing to stand up to the likes of Norquist. Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma was behind a recently passed measure that eliminates federal subsidies for corn ethanol, which is possibly the most inefficient, and least environmentally friendly bio-fuel around. There is massive amount of such spending in the tax code, and most of it is hugely inefficient, just like the ethanol tax credit.
The Republicans continue to say that they are the only ones who have put forward a credible plan to deal with the deficit. Credible is an overstatement. Paul Ryan’s overrated budget proposal, with its voodoo math, does very little to actually deal with health care costs, the biggest driver of deficits over the medium and long term. All it does is simply shift costs from the federal government to states, seniors and the poor. And of course, when some serious health care reform was attempted, Republicans vociferously, and typically illogically and hypocritically, opposed it. And since its passage, they have done all they can to try and stop its implementation (unsuccessfully might I add). The Ryan budget is completely disingenuous. But this is nothing more than par for the course as far as Republicans today are concerned. Another ‘idea’ making the rounds is a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Senators Jim DeMint (South Carolina) and the more moderate Olympia Snowe (Maine) recently penned an op-ed calling for such an amendment. To see someone like Snowe engage in such policy is disappointing. A balanced budget amendment has been a long time idea of Republicans, after all, what is so wrong with forcing the Federal Government to live within its means? Many states are forced to have balanced budgets, so extrapolating this to the Federal Government should be a good idea, correct? In fact such an amendment would be terrible economic policy. First of all the Federal Government has to deal with all sorts of things that states do not. And the ability to run deficits is a basic necessity of any national government. How many business start-ups do so without a loan? How many people can buy a house outright without a mortgage? To hamstring the United States government in such a way would be ridiculous, and it would not go down well with markets or with other major economic powers around the world. To show the foolishness of such an amendment, the Republicans economic centrepiece, the Ryan budget, would be ruled unconstitutional under this plan. And of course, the Republicans have not been forced to explain such a discrepancy between these two pieces of legislation.
Even New York times journalist David Brooks, not some left wing radical, but one of the establishment and always one for jumping on a bandwagon, is now disillusioned with what the GOP has become, saying they ‘may no longer be a normal party’, in the sense that when a deal is there to be made, they walk away from the table. Instead of doing their jobs and proving pragmatic and practical assistance to the governing process (even if their assistance may be from an opposing point of view to the President), they choose to take heed from the protest movement that has infected their party.
Despite all this, it is extremely unlikely that a deal will not be made. Despite the influence of the Tea Party crowd and the likes of Grover Norquist, there are plenty on Wall Street who also have significant influence, and they will tell the party exactly what they have been saying in public, in no uncertain terms: the debt ceiling must be raised, without fail. The devil will of course be in the detail. How far will the Republicans budge on taxes? How much will the Democrats give in on entitlements? And will there be any more economic stimulus that an anaemic economy desperately needs? What is clear though is the Republicans have no intention of abandoning their obstructionism any time soon. They are not interested in the greater good, and show no sign of returning to an intellectual debate based on logic, and basic economic math. This does not bode well for when the debate on much needed real and meaningful reforms to taxes and entitlements begins.
Brief Comment On Ed Miliband
Today I watched a video of that interview with Labour leader Ed Miliband. Anyone who sees that must honestly say it was pretty awful, and tough to watch if, like me, you are a Labour supporter.
There is much to write about Mr Miliband’s leadership so far, but he is going through a very tough time. You can argue he has not had a fair shake of it since he was elected, but surely he knew what was coming. Personally, I wanted David. But ultimately, I want to see Labour be successful, and I want to give Ed a real chance. He constantly finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place, witness his statement on yesterdays strikes and the response to it, and many in the public(and the party) are still unable to picture him as a national leader. He is not at fault for what nature has given him, and despite his obvious intellect, when you see and hear him, it is extremely difficult to envision him being British Prime Minister. The public are also unclear on where Ed, and therefore the Labour Party, stand as a whole. We have not yet begun to offer an alternative vision for the country, and, like America, we have allowed the Government to shift the narrative to immediate spending cuts and away from potential economic stimulus.
The next few weeks and months could be tumultuous, with consistent disappointment in Ed’s public performances, coupled with a lack of movement in the polls putting even more pressure on his leadership. But the real test will come from whether or not he can be seen by those within the party as a reformer.Monday he gave a speech about transforming the way the party works, calling for transparency, and immediately stories appeared saying that the next General Secretary of the party had been handpicked by the leadership before the shortlist was even finalised. Ed’s response to the Refounding Labour consultation will also be telling. If he fails to pass these tests, he will find himself pressured from two sides; by the ‘elites’ and party insiders who didn’t support him in the first place, and by those who did who have been disappointed by his lack of reform. When the government is attempting to make sweeping changes to the NHS, the education system, as well making steep spending cuts in the current economic climate, the Labour Party must be in a position to offer an alternative. Of course it takes time to formulate a detailed policy agenda, but we risk being left by the wayside in a time of potential change. The public are also looking for an alternative, and given how unpopular some of the governments proposals seem to be, we should be crushing them in the polls, but we are not.
I recently read a quote (I forget where) that essentially said; ‘What is worse, a leader so bad that he needs to be replaced, with the messiness and risks a leadership election entails, or a leader who is bad but hangs on to the next election, then goes on to lose it.’ Unfortunately, I find myself asking this question more and more.
What’s Right With English Cricket
In stark contrast to their footballing coutnerparts, English cricketers have never been better. There is qutie possibly more home grown talent in the domestic leagues than ever before. The national is arguably the strongest test nation around, having thumped Australia home and abroad in the last two years amongst other things. Although they are currently ranked third, if they beat an aging India this summer (as I think they will) few will be able to argue that they are the best five day side going. The limited overs side has had less success. However they are the defending 20 over champions, and before their inconsisdent and tired display in the recent 50 over World Cup in the sub-continent, they had previously won three series in a row against Pakistan, Bangladesh and Australia.
The main thrust here though is that there is a plethora of English talent, and over the past couple of years, players coming in to the national side for the first time have usually done well. This bodes well for the future and also shows the massive strides domestic cricket has made.
There are many issues with English domestic cricket, such as the number of sides, finances, amount of cricket etc, but one thing must be clear: county sides are producing more international quality players than ever before.
In recent years, under the leadership of Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower, the likes of Stuart Broad, Jonathan Trott, Eoin Morgan, Greame Swann and Chris Tremlett have not only made good impressions at the international level, but have emerged as geniune world class players. The depth of talent, and therefore pressure on existing members of the squad, has never been greater. Alex Hales, James Hildreth, Ben Stokes, James Vince, Jade Dernbach, Stuart Meaker, Adil Rashis, Steven Davis and Jos Buttler are all itching for a chance in an England shirt (in the case of Rashis and Davis, another, fair chance). And the list goes on. In addition, today’s England cricketer is a different breed. They are not as orthodox, therefore better suited to limited over cricket. They are also generally more athletic than ever – England are by far the best fielding side in the world.
What all this means is the future is incredibly bright for English cricket. For those patriotic sports fans looking for a successful national side to support, look no further from the England cricket team. Unlike their footballing counterparts, this golden generation of players is, and will continue to live up to the hype and deliver success.
What’s Wrong With English Football
Reading the headline of this post, you can think there is nothing new to see here. How many times have we heard this story before? After a poor performance by the national side in a tournament, or indeed in a one off game, all the sporting sages in the land, those oh so wise men that find themselves on Match of the Day or Sunday Supplement, spout off the causes of our perpetual under performance.
The England Under-21 side went into the latest European Championships as second favourites, and rightly so. However this tournament did not contain the defending champions, Germany, nor Italy, France or the Netherlands. And anyone who follows football on the continent (or plays Football Manager) will know the young talent those countries posess.
But England suffered from the same frailties as their senior coutnerparts, notably an inability to keep the ball or make simple passes (thus the ever present ‘long ball’), the appearance of being technically inferior to their opponents, and something that does not mentioned as often, but is perhaps the most important deficiency, our players seem to be significantly lacking in football intelligence. This results in atrocious off the ball movement. Over and over again we see a rigid formation; two players in the middle of the park, two players out wide, and two in or around the penalty box. Watching the under-21′s, I lost count fairly quickly of the number of times a player had possession with out a team mate within 10 yards of him. Players are static, resulting in the man in possession attempting a pass which leads to them loosing possession. A lacking of footballing intelligence is, in my opinion, the most crucial flaw with the majority of English players.
There are, of course, exceptions, such as Wayne Rooney (dont laugh, remember I’m talking about ‘football intelligence’) or Jack Wilshere. But lets compare to Spain. Unfair I know. Their league is a lot less competetive than ours – it is in danger of turning in to a wealthier, more attractive version of the Scottish Premier League. But you do not have to be playing for Barca or Real to learn what epitomizes Spanish football. Players on the continent are taught from a young age to ‘play’. Creativity is embraced. Excellent off the ball movement is a must. Lets have a closer comparison. Liverpool paid £20 million for Jordan Henderson (I could go on and on about overpriced English players). The same amount could have bought you Javi Martinez or Juan Mata, either of whom could walk in to any side in the Premier League (and probably Europe). And neither of these have been feted as the next great thing, nor have they (to my knowledge) embraced a lavish lifestyle that English players seem to enjoy so much.
There are plenty of talented English players, and certainly the players alone are not to blame. How Mark Albrighton never started a game or Connor Wickham never even made a substitute appearance is beyond me. But a lot of the time in the Premier League their deficiencies are masked by playing with foreign players. Surround them with an entire squad of Englishmen, and their true abilities show.
And lets get one thing straight – money is not the problem, or the answer. After all, I do not think the Swiss or the Czechs have millions to throw at football, and look at the style in which their sides play. The problem is about our footballing culture. Coaches (and scouts) need to embrace creativity and the unorthodox. Academies must breed smart players. We need not to be searching for impressive physical specimens, but for players who display an impressive amount of footballing intelligence. We must be humble, and treat footballers like athletes and not as celebrities. These are the sort of lessons we need to be taking from other countries. Only then will we have a side capable of matching them on the highest stage.
The Alex McLeish Saga
My beloved Aston Villa are going through a torrid period as of late. The latest twist is the appointment of Alex McLeish as manager. If you believe only what has been reported in the media, Villa fans are outraged for one simple reason – he was the manager of Birmingham City.
If you were to believe only this, you would be believing a lie. The real issue with McLeish is just as simple – he is not good enough. There was a disgusting article in the Guardian today by Paul Hayward, lambasting Villa fans for turning against McLeish due to his recent history, and not looking at his merits as a manager. In his article, Hayward also apparently forgot to look at McLeish’s merits.
For some reason, McLeish seems to enjoy a large amount of respect within the media. But his record with Birmingham has not been good. He has got them relegated twice, and they were quite possible the most boring team in the league last season. They do no play attacking football, and seem to score a goal about every 7 hours of football. So this is the reason why we did not want McLeish. Mark Hughes would have been bearable – despite the fact he thought Steve Sidwell was a good signing. Martinez was another joke. Moyes should have been near the top of the list. There were, of course, no ‘outside the box’ candidates, like a Michael Laudrup. And if we really wanted the manager of a Championship club, how about a Paul Lambert or Simon Grayson?
Instead we have McLeish, and the club’s name has been dragged through the mud. Ashley Young is leaving, with Stewart Downing set to follow. The next weeks and months are going to be tough, and McLeish is going to have to hit the ground running. Rumour has it he has been given a £40 million transfer kitty. And today we have been linked with a’swoop’ for Wes Brown. So this is what we have to look forward to. Dear me.
