The post on the health debate in America will have to wait, because as many of you will have heard, the debate about university fees has reared its ugly head again, with the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) suggesting that fees should go up, loans be reduced, and less students be let into higher education. So, according to the CBI, not only should students have to pay higher fees, but they should also be given little, if any, money to live off while they study.
Now, one thing always strikes me whenever this debate resurfaces, namely that the biggest advocates of the 'students should pay more' argument fall into two types of person:
1) Mr/Mrs never-been-to-university-and-never-will: In the vast majority of cases, this type has an image in their head of students being the stereotypical layabout who sits around watching daytime tv and eating toast all day, then getting drunk every night. Naturally, this is all on the back of Mr/Mrs never been to..'s taxes. Granted, there are some students who lay around and don't study when they should be, but these are the minority in many cases - not to mention, they tend to be the ones who realise they've wasted three years around graduation time on picking up a 3rd class degree in film & tv, so there is some justice. My own experience from graduation this year is that those who didn't put in the work didn't get the results.
As for drinking, well thats another long paragraph potentiall in itself. All I will say is that in my experience, students get drunk a lot less than those in full time jobs. The main point, however, is that this person sticks rigidly to this negative stereotype of students and is all too quick to blabber on 'Have Your Say' about how students should get no help at all and should get jobs instead of studying.
2)Mr/Mrs forgotten-how-they-got-where-they-are: I can almost forgive the ignorance of the first type - its an easy view to hold when you don't know any different. But I really can't stand the types (such as those who run the CBI) who actually went to university themselves, yet still advocate raising fees. This is nothing less than climbing the ladder to the top, and then pulling it up out of reach of those at the bottom - and it is despicable. Especially so when you consider that these people got to where they were on the back of FREE university education, and were given grants on which to live.
I'm a realist about this though. I know we shall probably never see a return to free higher education, and I can accept students paying towards their degree if it means good quality institutions and teaching. What I never have been able to accept is attempts by those in power to introduce hikes in fees and reductions in grants that restrict who goes to university. Yes, I agree with the CBI that the 50% target isn't right (there shouldn';t be a target at all). However, for me, no person should be restricted in their educational opportunities because of their level of income. The kind of measures the CBI suggest will only set this country back by many years by restricting university education to those with the ability to afford it, rather than opening it to everyone who has the desire and academic ability to do a degree.
Monday 21 September 2009
Wednesday 16 September 2009
'Diving' and a case of unexpected generosity (sort of)
Yeah.. that old committment to blog regularly seems to have fallen away. I'll admit, I do earmark things to blog about but usually by the time I've got back from work its slipped my mind.
Anyway enough of that, onto the first of my two football topics for today. Firstly, quick off the mark (or not..) as ever, I thought I'd talk about my thoughts on the whole recent diving controversy. I'll admit, I absolutely despise the occurence of diving in football; ok, its hardly up there with sticking a fake blood capsule in your mouth in cheating terms, but it's dishonest and outright unsporting behaviour. However, I welcomed the news that Eduardo's UEFA-imposed ban for diving (allegedly) in the Champions League match against Celtic was recently overturned. The decision initially to hand Eduardo a two match ban seemed all too reactionary for my liking, designed to appease those calling for harsher penalties on players who dive and, ultimately, to make an example of Eduardo. I agree with punishment for players who dive, but it must be applied even-handedly - at the end of the day, diving is an all too regular appearance in football (I'd argue that the penalty Wayne Rooney won in the match against Arsenal the following weekend was almost, if not equally, as dubious as the one Eduardo won). For me, difficult as it might be in an age when tv replays are watched over and over again in post-match analysis, the final word should rest with the match referee on the day.
Onto something a little more positive, with the news that the Premier League has made a one-off payment of £1million to the 68 clubs in the Football Conference (Conference Prem, Conf North and Conf South). As a fan of a Conference North team, I particuarly welcome this payment. While it may not be much in terms of the kind of money splashing around in the Premiership, it is nonetheless a welcome gesture at a time when clubs in the non-league pyramid are facing numerous financial problems. Furthermore, after the collapse of Setanta and the failure to reach a deal between ESPN and the Conference, this payment will be important in going some way towards plugging the gap left by the expected payments from Setanta, especially when most teams will have budgeted on the basis of receiving the money from the broadcaster. Shame we won't see a more sustained redistribution of wealth towards the lower leagues and the grassroots, but every little helps.
Next up on my blog: the American healthcare debate!
Anyway enough of that, onto the first of my two football topics for today. Firstly, quick off the mark (or not..) as ever, I thought I'd talk about my thoughts on the whole recent diving controversy. I'll admit, I absolutely despise the occurence of diving in football; ok, its hardly up there with sticking a fake blood capsule in your mouth in cheating terms, but it's dishonest and outright unsporting behaviour. However, I welcomed the news that Eduardo's UEFA-imposed ban for diving (allegedly) in the Champions League match against Celtic was recently overturned. The decision initially to hand Eduardo a two match ban seemed all too reactionary for my liking, designed to appease those calling for harsher penalties on players who dive and, ultimately, to make an example of Eduardo. I agree with punishment for players who dive, but it must be applied even-handedly - at the end of the day, diving is an all too regular appearance in football (I'd argue that the penalty Wayne Rooney won in the match against Arsenal the following weekend was almost, if not equally, as dubious as the one Eduardo won). For me, difficult as it might be in an age when tv replays are watched over and over again in post-match analysis, the final word should rest with the match referee on the day.
Onto something a little more positive, with the news that the Premier League has made a one-off payment of £1million to the 68 clubs in the Football Conference (Conference Prem, Conf North and Conf South). As a fan of a Conference North team, I particuarly welcome this payment. While it may not be much in terms of the kind of money splashing around in the Premiership, it is nonetheless a welcome gesture at a time when clubs in the non-league pyramid are facing numerous financial problems. Furthermore, after the collapse of Setanta and the failure to reach a deal between ESPN and the Conference, this payment will be important in going some way towards plugging the gap left by the expected payments from Setanta, especially when most teams will have budgeted on the basis of receiving the money from the broadcaster. Shame we won't see a more sustained redistribution of wealth towards the lower leagues and the grassroots, but every little helps.
Next up on my blog: the American healthcare debate!
Tuesday 4 August 2009
The surprising adventures of Rich on public transport
I'm breaking with one of my self-imposed rules that I would not use this blog to carry on about my day to day activities, but I think this little story forms part of a wider tale about public transport. In particular, for me, it illustrates just why public transport has, for many people, yet to become a viable long term alternative to car usage.
Anyway, my car yesterday went in for its MOT which meant that for the first time since starting my new job two weeks ago, I had to rely on public transport to get myself from Telford to Walsall. My trip to work went something like this:
7.05 - Left my house
7.27 - Caught the train from Wellington station
8.20 - Arrived at Birmingham New Street
8.39 - Caught train for Rugeley Trent Valley
8.59 - Arrived in Walsall
9.15 - Arrived at work
On the face of it, such a journey doesn't look so horrific. However, the first thing that you will notice is that it, in effect, took me two hours to get from Telford to Walsall. Those of you familiar with the geography of Birmingham and the Black Country will also notice that, in one of those annoying quirks of the British rail network, I had to effectively double back on myself in the trajectory of my overall journey. Additionally, if I was to get a train from Wolverhampton to Walsall, that would take me 55 minutes, stopping at numerous stations in between, seemingly going into Birmingham, then back up to Walsall. Next, consider that on a normal day driving to work, the journey to Walsall would take me less than half the time it took by train. Even with the inevitable congestion on the M6, this journey rarely takes me more than 45 minutes, and I expect that when the schools go back the journey will still take not much more than an hour.
I know I've strayed into rant territory, but quite frankly it needed saying. For the UK to truly move away from car usage, it appears to me that we need substantial investment in the public transport infrastructure. Granted, we are in a recession and cuts are being made, but for us to have a truly world class rail system we need a clear vision, that will be adhered to, of how the government (whoever it may be) will drive forward the development of the network so that we can move towards higher speed, electrified lines across the country.
Anyway, my car yesterday went in for its MOT which meant that for the first time since starting my new job two weeks ago, I had to rely on public transport to get myself from Telford to Walsall. My trip to work went something like this:
7.05 - Left my house
7.27 - Caught the train from Wellington station
8.20 - Arrived at Birmingham New Street
8.39 - Caught train for Rugeley Trent Valley
8.59 - Arrived in Walsall
9.15 - Arrived at work
On the face of it, such a journey doesn't look so horrific. However, the first thing that you will notice is that it, in effect, took me two hours to get from Telford to Walsall. Those of you familiar with the geography of Birmingham and the Black Country will also notice that, in one of those annoying quirks of the British rail network, I had to effectively double back on myself in the trajectory of my overall journey. Additionally, if I was to get a train from Wolverhampton to Walsall, that would take me 55 minutes, stopping at numerous stations in between, seemingly going into Birmingham, then back up to Walsall. Next, consider that on a normal day driving to work, the journey to Walsall would take me less than half the time it took by train. Even with the inevitable congestion on the M6, this journey rarely takes me more than 45 minutes, and I expect that when the schools go back the journey will still take not much more than an hour.
I know I've strayed into rant territory, but quite frankly it needed saying. For the UK to truly move away from car usage, it appears to me that we need substantial investment in the public transport infrastructure. Granted, we are in a recession and cuts are being made, but for us to have a truly world class rail system we need a clear vision, that will be adhered to, of how the government (whoever it may be) will drive forward the development of the network so that we can move towards higher speed, electrified lines across the country.
Saturday 18 July 2009
Hey big spenders!
Firstly, apologies once again for the lack of posts recently. The last couple of weeks have been rather busy, topped off with graduation this week, so writing things for this blog has taken a back seat. Anyway, I realise I may have said that this blog will 'mainly be about politics' when I first set it up but, in the interests of making more regular entries, I will be diversifying to include things I find of general interest.
So, onto today's topic: football. Or, more specifically, Manchester City. With the news today that City have added to their embarassment of riches up front by signing Arsenal's Emmanuel Adebayor it is interesting to consider the prospects for City in the forthcoming season. Regardless of the reasons why their new signings may have gone there, it is fair to say that a team with the likes of Gareth Barry, Carlos Tevez, Adebayor, Robinho, Roque Santa Cruz and Shaun Wright-Phillips (with presumably more to follow) can not be disregarded as a potential challenger to the top teams this season.
With seven weeks to go until the transfer window closes, it is reasonable to imagine that Man City will continue to spend like there's no tomorrow, with defenders presumably next on Mark Hughes's shopping list. Yes, he may be after John Terry but I can't realistically see him (and lets be honest here) throwing away his chance of ever winning the Champions League, the one big prize he hasn't yet won, in pursuit of an extra £60,000 a week (or whatever his salary increase would be). It will be interesting to see who City are able to bring in to strengthen the backline - certainly, if they can get in two or three quality defenders one would find it difficult to see how they wouldn't at the very least get into the top six, if not challenge the top four.
On paper, I fully expect City to have a squad on a par with the top four by the end of the transfer window. Some of the very best players will continue to shun them, but the last few weeks have proven that they are still capable of attracting a pretty good calibre of player. The challenge for City, and for Mark Hughes in particular, is now twofold. First, he has to turn a bunch of quality players into a team; its all well and good having top class players but they won't compete with the best if they can't play for each other. Second, he has one of the most difficult tasks a manager can have, and that is to consistently get the best out of some very talented players who, despite what they may say, are at City (at least in part) for the considerable amount of money on offer.
So, onto today's topic: football. Or, more specifically, Manchester City. With the news today that City have added to their embarassment of riches up front by signing Arsenal's Emmanuel Adebayor it is interesting to consider the prospects for City in the forthcoming season. Regardless of the reasons why their new signings may have gone there, it is fair to say that a team with the likes of Gareth Barry, Carlos Tevez, Adebayor, Robinho, Roque Santa Cruz and Shaun Wright-Phillips (with presumably more to follow) can not be disregarded as a potential challenger to the top teams this season.
With seven weeks to go until the transfer window closes, it is reasonable to imagine that Man City will continue to spend like there's no tomorrow, with defenders presumably next on Mark Hughes's shopping list. Yes, he may be after John Terry but I can't realistically see him (and lets be honest here) throwing away his chance of ever winning the Champions League, the one big prize he hasn't yet won, in pursuit of an extra £60,000 a week (or whatever his salary increase would be). It will be interesting to see who City are able to bring in to strengthen the backline - certainly, if they can get in two or three quality defenders one would find it difficult to see how they wouldn't at the very least get into the top six, if not challenge the top four.
On paper, I fully expect City to have a squad on a par with the top four by the end of the transfer window. Some of the very best players will continue to shun them, but the last few weeks have proven that they are still capable of attracting a pretty good calibre of player. The challenge for City, and for Mark Hughes in particular, is now twofold. First, he has to turn a bunch of quality players into a team; its all well and good having top class players but they won't compete with the best if they can't play for each other. Second, he has one of the most difficult tasks a manager can have, and that is to consistently get the best out of some very talented players who, despite what they may say, are at City (at least in part) for the considerable amount of money on offer.
Sunday 5 July 2009
'Gold Rush'?
Having had a lot of time on my hands recently, I've had to endure the inevitable shit adverts about car insurance and claims companies on daytime TV. However, amongst these a couple of adverts amused me, one of which I provide a link to below.
All I can say is, you know the country is in a recession when you have David Dickinson in a cheap (as chips) looking advert urging people to send in unwanted gold in return for cash!
http://www.itvmedia.co.uk/default.asp?section=107&page=8497&cfs=5772&case=1
http://www.rexjohnsononline.com/ABOUT_REX_JOHNSON.html
All I can say is, you know the country is in a recession when you have David Dickinson in a cheap (as chips) looking advert urging people to send in unwanted gold in return for cash!
http://www.itvmedia.co.uk/default.asp?section=107&page=8497&cfs=5772&case=1
http://www.rexjohnsononline.com/ABOUT_REX_JOHNSON.html
Wednesday 24 June 2009
OI! PEDRO! DO YOU DO CHIPS?!
I was supposed to be writing this while I was watching the programme on ITV1 entitled 'Spain: Paradise Lost', but obviously its a couple of hours later now so its not quite as fresh in my mind, but here we go anyway.
I only happened to catch this show by accident as my mom was watching it, but within the first few minutes it got me annoyed; well, enough to blog about it, which I suppose is quite annoyed! It got me thinking about one of those great ironies; that of the Express/Mail/Sun reading type who moans about how Britain is 'going to the dogs' because of the strain immigrants supposedly place on services, and who solves this issue by.... yes, thats right, becoming one of them by moving to Spain! No doubt they lounge by their pool or sit in the 'Irish' Bar lamenting the fact that local councils in the UK offer leaflets in different languages, for example.
I can't blame some of these people for moving to Spain in some ways. I mean, nice weather, relaxing lifestyle no doubt - wouldn't mind it myself one day. But alarm bells rang for me when the programme introduced a small town near Alicante where Brits outnumber the locals by four to one, giving the place the nickname 'Little Britian'. To be honest, I think its a bit sad going to live abroad only to live in a community surrounded entirely by your own countrymen, eating the exact same stuff you did back home, but I can sort of understand why the British expats do this, and they're hardly the only ones to do this; it happens pretty much everywhere with immigrant communities. What really riled me though was when the Brits were asked how much Spanish they knew; 'grande cerveza' was the sum of one gentleman's knowledge of the Spanish language, and 'vino blanco' the sum of another, female, expat's knowledge. What annoyed me as well was the indication that these people had no intention of trying to learn Spanish, as they didn't feel the need to. Additionally, a bloke who had opened a bar/cafe with his wife admitted that he'd be stuck if he had to serve a local, as he knew no Spanish. Part of me wonders if these people deliberately set out to further the stereotype of the ignorant tourist, but the realist in me concedes that its sheer laziness above all.
Now, it seems to me that if you intend to live and/or work in another country, it is your duty to attempt to learn the language of said country. Heaven knows, enough people expect it of people who come to live and work in Britain (and rightly so). I wouldn't at all suggest that these British expats have to be fluent in Spanish before they move there, but surely a basic command of the language, and an intention to become more proficient in the language, would be common courtesy. In my experience, at least attempting to communicate in the local language goes a long way towards winning over the locals and making the stay more enjoyable. For that reason, if I moved abroad I would make every effort to become fluent in the language and assimilate into the community. As it is, I felt it difficult to have any sympathy with the expats who were struggling, when they set up their 'traditional British' bars and clearly had no intention of attracting any custom outside of the bloody expat community!
I only happened to catch this show by accident as my mom was watching it, but within the first few minutes it got me annoyed; well, enough to blog about it, which I suppose is quite annoyed! It got me thinking about one of those great ironies; that of the Express/Mail/Sun reading type who moans about how Britain is 'going to the dogs' because of the strain immigrants supposedly place on services, and who solves this issue by.... yes, thats right, becoming one of them by moving to Spain! No doubt they lounge by their pool or sit in the 'Irish' Bar lamenting the fact that local councils in the UK offer leaflets in different languages, for example.
I can't blame some of these people for moving to Spain in some ways. I mean, nice weather, relaxing lifestyle no doubt - wouldn't mind it myself one day. But alarm bells rang for me when the programme introduced a small town near Alicante where Brits outnumber the locals by four to one, giving the place the nickname 'Little Britian'. To be honest, I think its a bit sad going to live abroad only to live in a community surrounded entirely by your own countrymen, eating the exact same stuff you did back home, but I can sort of understand why the British expats do this, and they're hardly the only ones to do this; it happens pretty much everywhere with immigrant communities. What really riled me though was when the Brits were asked how much Spanish they knew; 'grande cerveza' was the sum of one gentleman's knowledge of the Spanish language, and 'vino blanco' the sum of another, female, expat's knowledge. What annoyed me as well was the indication that these people had no intention of trying to learn Spanish, as they didn't feel the need to. Additionally, a bloke who had opened a bar/cafe with his wife admitted that he'd be stuck if he had to serve a local, as he knew no Spanish. Part of me wonders if these people deliberately set out to further the stereotype of the ignorant tourist, but the realist in me concedes that its sheer laziness above all.
Now, it seems to me that if you intend to live and/or work in another country, it is your duty to attempt to learn the language of said country. Heaven knows, enough people expect it of people who come to live and work in Britain (and rightly so). I wouldn't at all suggest that these British expats have to be fluent in Spanish before they move there, but surely a basic command of the language, and an intention to become more proficient in the language, would be common courtesy. In my experience, at least attempting to communicate in the local language goes a long way towards winning over the locals and making the stay more enjoyable. For that reason, if I moved abroad I would make every effort to become fluent in the language and assimilate into the community. As it is, I felt it difficult to have any sympathy with the expats who were struggling, when they set up their 'traditional British' bars and clearly had no intention of attracting any custom outside of the bloody expat community!
Monday 22 June 2009
Iranian elections 09
This is something I've been planning on writing about since I turned on the news last Sunday (14th June) to find that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been re-elected as President of Iran with over 60% of the vote. My genuine reaction, as my girlfriend will testify, was to remark that if he was going to rig the election, he could at least rig it so the result was at least plausible. I for one am not of the 'Ahmadinejad couldn't possibly have won' argument; I think its perfectly possible that he did indeed poll the most votes, but I remain sceptical that he won by such a huge vote, and I think this scepticism is justified for a number of reasons.
The reports of districts where the number of votes cast was higher than the number of registered voters is one such reason, as are the reports of the other candidates being heavily defeated electorally in their own hometowns. To be sure, it will be interesting to see what the outcome of any investigations into electoral fraud will be.
Nonetheless, what makes me sceptical above all is the widespread suppression of dissent in the aftermath of the elections. I've kept a close eye on the developments in Iran and I've been surprised at the extent to which the authorities have suppressed communications, whether this be mobile phones, broadcasting, or elements of the internet. Iran's leadership may talk about the strength of its democracy, but to me the true mark of a democratic, free country is an abilty to tolerate dissent and allow a reasonable degree of freedom of speech. It strikes me that if the Iranian leadership were confident that Ahmadinejad had won fairly, they would be able to deal with any questioning of the result in a fair manner, rather than resort to violence and threats against supporters of the opposition.
Doing a degree in Politics has made me somewhat wary of always holding up other societies to Western democratic ideals. I don't agree with the presence of religious figures in politics who are there by virtue of their position and not any expertise they may or many not have. Therefore, I'm suspicious of democracies with a strong theocratic element such as Iran's, with a clerical Supreme Leader, but I would add that I respect the right of any nation to work by such a system. Nonetheless, to me freedom of speech and the ability to express dissent against the government is the hallmark of a true democracy, and it disturbs me that such dissent is being reacted to with such a strong hand in Iran.
It will be interesting to see how things develop in Iran. It seems to me that the supporters of the opposition will not stop in their quest to get the result anulled, or the election re-run. As information continues to flow out of the country from a variety of sources, through various types of media that the authorities appear to be struggling to control, one gets the feeling that this issue is far from over.
The reports of districts where the number of votes cast was higher than the number of registered voters is one such reason, as are the reports of the other candidates being heavily defeated electorally in their own hometowns. To be sure, it will be interesting to see what the outcome of any investigations into electoral fraud will be.
Nonetheless, what makes me sceptical above all is the widespread suppression of dissent in the aftermath of the elections. I've kept a close eye on the developments in Iran and I've been surprised at the extent to which the authorities have suppressed communications, whether this be mobile phones, broadcasting, or elements of the internet. Iran's leadership may talk about the strength of its democracy, but to me the true mark of a democratic, free country is an abilty to tolerate dissent and allow a reasonable degree of freedom of speech. It strikes me that if the Iranian leadership were confident that Ahmadinejad had won fairly, they would be able to deal with any questioning of the result in a fair manner, rather than resort to violence and threats against supporters of the opposition.
Doing a degree in Politics has made me somewhat wary of always holding up other societies to Western democratic ideals. I don't agree with the presence of religious figures in politics who are there by virtue of their position and not any expertise they may or many not have. Therefore, I'm suspicious of democracies with a strong theocratic element such as Iran's, with a clerical Supreme Leader, but I would add that I respect the right of any nation to work by such a system. Nonetheless, to me freedom of speech and the ability to express dissent against the government is the hallmark of a true democracy, and it disturbs me that such dissent is being reacted to with such a strong hand in Iran.
It will be interesting to see how things develop in Iran. It seems to me that the supporters of the opposition will not stop in their quest to get the result anulled, or the election re-run. As information continues to flow out of the country from a variety of sources, through various types of media that the authorities appear to be struggling to control, one gets the feeling that this issue is far from over.
Monday 8 June 2009
Follow the leader?
First of all, may I say thank you to my friend Ewarwoowar, blog entitled 'The Rise and Rise of Tim Lovejoy', for a bit of free publicity recently. I was pleasently surprised to see I have four followers now as a result! To those of you reading, I hope my posts continue to be of interest.
Right, so the dust has settled following last Thursday's local council elections and European Parliament elections, and as expected Labour has taken something of a hammering in the polls. I have to admit, before the election I was unaware of just how many councils the Conservatives controlled, and following Thursday's elections Labour lost control of all the councils that were up for election. Unsurprisingly, speculation has been rife over the weekend of a leadership challenge to Gordon Brown, with ministers having resigned left, right and centre prior to Thursday. When I was packing away my possessions at university on Friday, I stopped for a bit to watch Gordon Brown's news conference, having a funny feeling that something big may have been announced. However, Brown made it clear that he was staying on as Prime Minister to meet the challenges that the government faces. This got me thinking a bit more about his position, and that of the Labour Party, and it made me realise how they truly are - to use a popular phrase - caught between a rock and a hard place.
I see there being two options for Gordon Brown and Labour at this moment in time.
1) Stand by their man and stay united behind Gordon Brown
Labour can do what they're doing (just about!) and stick with Gordon Brown. Yes, there have been questions about his leadership but no-one appears to be standing out within the Cabinet who will step up and be the one to 'wield the knife'. If they go on like this, chances are they will weather the storm and limp through to the next general election, whenever in the next twelve months that may be. The advantage of this option is that they appear united (well, as united as they can) and can credibly argue that they are facing adversity and getting on with the job of running the country, mitigating the effects of the recession and reforming the expenses system while David Cameron bleats on about calling an election at Prime Minister's Questions. The disadvantage is that they are portrayed as being out of touch with the mood of the electorate (which delivered a damning verdict last week), Brown's authority is shown as weakening ever further as discontent in the ranks rumbles on below, and public opinion hardens even further against the Labour government. Thus, the result is electoral defeat for Labour and for Gordon Brown.
2) Launch a leadership challenge and force Brown out
This option may seem attractive for some within the Labour Party right now. Either gather the necessary support (and a candidate) to trigger a leadership challenge, or get close enough that Gordon Brown is persuaded by senior figures in the party to jump rather than be pushed. Once Brown is gone, elect a fresh face who can renew the Party and present themselves to the electorate as someone who can bring about change; would this be David Milliband, 'the Johnson', or another? Who knows.
The advantage here is that Labour can claim it is breaking with the past, and an unpopular leader. Also, the party can unite fully behind its new leader meaning that the government can get on with the job without the distractions provided by discontent and continuous leadership speculation.
On the other side, the disadvantage is that the pressure would be extremely high on the government to call an immediate general election. To change leader twice in one term of Parliament without consulting the public would be pretty much unthinkable. Therefore, a general election would be likely. Portrayed as in disarray and lacking in unity and direction, Labour would almost certainly be defeated at the polls through this route.
In my view, the Labour Party are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Stick with Brown and they will - barring a Tory implosion - face defeat at the next election. Get rid of him now, and they go into an election in disarray and only bring forward the demise of the Labour government. For what its worth, difficult as it will be for him, I think that Gordon Brown is making the right decision in staying on as PM. If a general election is triggered any time soon, any action on the economy or on reforming MPs expenses will take a backseat to campaigning and this, in my view, is not what we need as a country in a time of economic crisis.
However, it is certainly a tricky situation and one thing is for sure; it will be interesting to see how things develop over the coming weeks. I'll certainly be interested to hear your opinions on the prospects for Gordon Brown and Labour in the near future.
Right, so the dust has settled following last Thursday's local council elections and European Parliament elections, and as expected Labour has taken something of a hammering in the polls. I have to admit, before the election I was unaware of just how many councils the Conservatives controlled, and following Thursday's elections Labour lost control of all the councils that were up for election. Unsurprisingly, speculation has been rife over the weekend of a leadership challenge to Gordon Brown, with ministers having resigned left, right and centre prior to Thursday. When I was packing away my possessions at university on Friday, I stopped for a bit to watch Gordon Brown's news conference, having a funny feeling that something big may have been announced. However, Brown made it clear that he was staying on as Prime Minister to meet the challenges that the government faces. This got me thinking a bit more about his position, and that of the Labour Party, and it made me realise how they truly are - to use a popular phrase - caught between a rock and a hard place.
I see there being two options for Gordon Brown and Labour at this moment in time.
1) Stand by their man and stay united behind Gordon Brown
Labour can do what they're doing (just about!) and stick with Gordon Brown. Yes, there have been questions about his leadership but no-one appears to be standing out within the Cabinet who will step up and be the one to 'wield the knife'. If they go on like this, chances are they will weather the storm and limp through to the next general election, whenever in the next twelve months that may be. The advantage of this option is that they appear united (well, as united as they can) and can credibly argue that they are facing adversity and getting on with the job of running the country, mitigating the effects of the recession and reforming the expenses system while David Cameron bleats on about calling an election at Prime Minister's Questions. The disadvantage is that they are portrayed as being out of touch with the mood of the electorate (which delivered a damning verdict last week), Brown's authority is shown as weakening ever further as discontent in the ranks rumbles on below, and public opinion hardens even further against the Labour government. Thus, the result is electoral defeat for Labour and for Gordon Brown.
2) Launch a leadership challenge and force Brown out
This option may seem attractive for some within the Labour Party right now. Either gather the necessary support (and a candidate) to trigger a leadership challenge, or get close enough that Gordon Brown is persuaded by senior figures in the party to jump rather than be pushed. Once Brown is gone, elect a fresh face who can renew the Party and present themselves to the electorate as someone who can bring about change; would this be David Milliband, 'the Johnson', or another? Who knows.
The advantage here is that Labour can claim it is breaking with the past, and an unpopular leader. Also, the party can unite fully behind its new leader meaning that the government can get on with the job without the distractions provided by discontent and continuous leadership speculation.
On the other side, the disadvantage is that the pressure would be extremely high on the government to call an immediate general election. To change leader twice in one term of Parliament without consulting the public would be pretty much unthinkable. Therefore, a general election would be likely. Portrayed as in disarray and lacking in unity and direction, Labour would almost certainly be defeated at the polls through this route.
In my view, the Labour Party are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Stick with Brown and they will - barring a Tory implosion - face defeat at the next election. Get rid of him now, and they go into an election in disarray and only bring forward the demise of the Labour government. For what its worth, difficult as it will be for him, I think that Gordon Brown is making the right decision in staying on as PM. If a general election is triggered any time soon, any action on the economy or on reforming MPs expenses will take a backseat to campaigning and this, in my view, is not what we need as a country in a time of economic crisis.
However, it is certainly a tricky situation and one thing is for sure; it will be interesting to see how things develop over the coming weeks. I'll certainly be interested to hear your opinions on the prospects for Gordon Brown and Labour in the near future.
Friday 29 May 2009
"My name is ...... and I approve this message" - views on party political broadcasts
First of all, allow me to apologise for the gap between this posts and my previous one: I meant to write it up last week but the need to revise for two exams over the bank holiday weekend intervened. However, this probably won't make too much difference because I haven't promoted this blog much!
Anyway, onto the topic of the party political broadcasts for the European Parliament elections. What I intend to do is to go through each broadcast (at least, the ones hosted on the BBC website) and offer up some thoughts on them. For the purpose of this analysis, I've decided to just look at the most recent broadcasts posted on the BBC website otherwise this post would be ridicuously long! For that reason, I've also decided to leave a few of the small parties out of this.
Conservative Party, 15th May
Right, David Cameron doesn't exactly endear me from the start when he makes it clear that it's going to be five minutes of him talking directly about MPs' expenses. I can see why Cameron would choose to take this route, as lets face it, a lot of people will be voting on the basis of the whole expenses issue and looking to stick it to the big twon parties. Also, its in his interest to make clear his plans on dealing with the expenses issue withing his party (even if the only reason anyone in the main parties is looking at reforming the system is because they've been called out on their frivolous claims by the media). Still, I find it frustrating that Mr. Cameron decides not to put across any policies or positions with regard to Europe or even the local elections. This is a problem which is endemic in secondary elections as it is, where people tend to just use them as a chance to vote against the government, and doesn't need exacerbating by party leaders brushing aside the actual issues that people are supposed to be voting on.
Like I said, I can see why Mr. Cameron spent a whole broadcast focussing on the expenses issue and it makes sense to highlight what he's doing about it. But anyone looking for any kind of policy with regard to Europe will, unfortunately, not find it in this broadcast.
Labour Party, 14th May
Entitled 'Cameron's Conservatives'. There's even a website by the same name! Man walks into warehouse, starts beating on punch bag. Cut to various people saying what David Cameron would do. I thought this was a pretty decent broadcast as they go. Focusses on why people shouldn't vote Conservative which I suppose is fair enough, pointing out where they would make cuts to services or other things that the Labour government has brought in. Had to laugh at the bloke getting in a car with the number plate TORY at the end, but the message was pretty clear and seems to do its purpose of putting doubts in the minds of people who might switch their vote from Labour to Tory next week.
Liberal Democrats, 28th May
Its Nick Clegg! And, it looks like another party leader monologue, and on a boring background - oh joy. Still, in fairness to Mr. Clegg he seems to have his finger on the pulse of public opinion and he's right to say that a few new faces won't change the fact that the system needs fundamental change in how its run. He's also setting out a few ideas that I think may resonate with some people, especially the right to for people to 'sack' MPs if they've acted out of line. As someone who agrees with the idea of consituents being able to 'recall' their MP (as the electorate in American states can do with their governors), I hope Nick Clegg pushes this idea in the Commons. But once again he falls into the trap of not having much to say about the European elections which lets the broadcast down a bit. Yet more proof that secondary elections don't focus enough on the issues they should be.
UK Independence Party, 12th May
United States of Europe? Made me chuckle, but not as much as the metaphor of a burglar with an EU t-shirt on sneaking into 'UK House' and nicking things. Thankfully though, if we vote UKIP we can stop nasty Euro-burglars from stealing our property, apparently...
Once again, they trot out the 'statistic' of 75% of laws passed being made by Brussels, and apparently we have no control over them. I'm no expert on European legislation, but I'm pretty sure member states have the final say on which laws are passed in their country still. Also, its all well and good saying 'we pay a membership fee of £40 million a day', but that conveniently ignores all the money that flows back in to the country in grants for projects. Then they move on to talk about immigration and how we shouldn't be letting poor people from Eastern Europe into the country? Seriously? I love how parties like UKIP keep referring to the vast swathes of immigrants who never quite come in their millions in reality. Pointless scaremongering.
UKIP's focus on getting MEPs has confused me for quite a while anyway. They seem to cling to some belief that by getting elected they can 'take the system down from the inside'. If they had any sense, surely they would focus on the general elections, as Westminster is the only body that can actually achieve their aim of removing us from the EU. As it stands, all they are doing is trying to pick up protest votes from the main parties, a point rammed home by their leader and the old Conservative donator wheeled out at the end of the broadcast. And no, Mr. Farage, I do not think that the most important question facing us surrounds our EU membership which, in my opinion, actually benefits us a lot more than people realise. That is why I will NOT be voting for UKIP next week.
Christian Party & Christian People's Alliance
Apparently these guys 'exist to challenge the secular agenda of the main parties'. I'm not sure there is such a thing, and I'll always be of the opinion that a political system based on secularity can only be a good thing. I could also write a whole other post on whether the values they espouse are exclusively Christian values (in my opinion, they are not). I also think religion should be kept separate from politics so I'm not entirely keen on these guys. Nonetheless, some of what they say and the values they talk about are ones I think are quite fair. Still, I'd be interested to see what their views are on where other religions stand and in particular on their views towards atheists or agnostics. What if people don't believe in a society founded on 'respect for God'? This is something that isn't clear from this broadcast. Either way, I'd sooner have an MEP from these parties than any of the anti-EU parties or the BNP though.
British National Party, 26th May
Speaking of the BNP, they have broadcasts too albeit very poor ones. I'll at least try to tone down my views for this post, but I can't promise anything!
So, it starts with a voiceover wistfully recalling a bygone era where we had fields (apparently, these have gone??), a working health service (was fine last time my family used it), honest politicians (seriously??) and safe streets (yeah, because no-one ever got abducted or killed back in 'the day', did they?). I find it amusing how parties like the BNP and, to a lesser extent, the likes of the Daily Mail newspaper, always seem to go about with the belief that everything was rosy back in the 1950s. They say we British built a happy society, though they ignore the contributions of millions from the British empire who fought for us to have a free and happy society, not to mention the immigrants from the empire & Commonwealth who came here to help rebuild Britain post-World War Two.
Then, like so often in this recent campaign, they go on to invoke the sacrifices of our soldiers in the aforementioned War. This really pisses me off personally, as we all know that these brave people fought and died so we would not have to live under a regime with the kind of views that the BNP advocates. Oh and the conflation of a Nazi-dominated Europe with the European Union is absolutely ridiculous, as is comparing modern-day immigrants to the spectre of Nazi soldiers invading the UK. Apparently 'political correctness' strips us of our heritage, bringing in such horrible concepts as diversity, equality and human rights: oh no! Please, whatever will we do! Also, I'm pretty certain no Council has EVER torn down an English flag.
Then Nick Griffin appears, saying 'lets be clear, the BNP doesn't blame the immigrants'. Yes you do, Mr. Griffin. And, yes it is about racism because your own party prohibits non-white membership and wants all such people deported!
Green Party, 27th May
My word, a party broadcast actually setting out clear policies, some of which are related to Europe! I'll admit, I've never really considered voting Green before and I'd imagine a fair few people would say the same, but this broadcast was probably my favourite of the bunch. It pretty much hits all the criteria of what a political broadcast should contain, in my view: clear policies, clear statements of what the party has achieved, and a clear statement of why one should vote for them. Pity that their campaign leaflets, from what I've seen, aren't that impressive. Hopefully a fair few people will have seen this broadcast; on reflection, I certainly wouldn't begrudge the Green Party picking up a few more seats in Europe.
Anyway, I think thats enough for now! Hope it was an interesting read, and make sure you get out and vote on Thursday!
Anyway, onto the topic of the party political broadcasts for the European Parliament elections. What I intend to do is to go through each broadcast (at least, the ones hosted on the BBC website) and offer up some thoughts on them. For the purpose of this analysis, I've decided to just look at the most recent broadcasts posted on the BBC website otherwise this post would be ridicuously long! For that reason, I've also decided to leave a few of the small parties out of this.
Conservative Party, 15th May
Right, David Cameron doesn't exactly endear me from the start when he makes it clear that it's going to be five minutes of him talking directly about MPs' expenses. I can see why Cameron would choose to take this route, as lets face it, a lot of people will be voting on the basis of the whole expenses issue and looking to stick it to the big twon parties. Also, its in his interest to make clear his plans on dealing with the expenses issue withing his party (even if the only reason anyone in the main parties is looking at reforming the system is because they've been called out on their frivolous claims by the media). Still, I find it frustrating that Mr. Cameron decides not to put across any policies or positions with regard to Europe or even the local elections. This is a problem which is endemic in secondary elections as it is, where people tend to just use them as a chance to vote against the government, and doesn't need exacerbating by party leaders brushing aside the actual issues that people are supposed to be voting on.
Like I said, I can see why Mr. Cameron spent a whole broadcast focussing on the expenses issue and it makes sense to highlight what he's doing about it. But anyone looking for any kind of policy with regard to Europe will, unfortunately, not find it in this broadcast.
Labour Party, 14th May
Entitled 'Cameron's Conservatives'. There's even a website by the same name! Man walks into warehouse, starts beating on punch bag. Cut to various people saying what David Cameron would do. I thought this was a pretty decent broadcast as they go. Focusses on why people shouldn't vote Conservative which I suppose is fair enough, pointing out where they would make cuts to services or other things that the Labour government has brought in. Had to laugh at the bloke getting in a car with the number plate TORY at the end, but the message was pretty clear and seems to do its purpose of putting doubts in the minds of people who might switch their vote from Labour to Tory next week.
Liberal Democrats, 28th May
Its Nick Clegg! And, it looks like another party leader monologue, and on a boring background - oh joy. Still, in fairness to Mr. Clegg he seems to have his finger on the pulse of public opinion and he's right to say that a few new faces won't change the fact that the system needs fundamental change in how its run. He's also setting out a few ideas that I think may resonate with some people, especially the right to for people to 'sack' MPs if they've acted out of line. As someone who agrees with the idea of consituents being able to 'recall' their MP (as the electorate in American states can do with their governors), I hope Nick Clegg pushes this idea in the Commons. But once again he falls into the trap of not having much to say about the European elections which lets the broadcast down a bit. Yet more proof that secondary elections don't focus enough on the issues they should be.
UK Independence Party, 12th May
United States of Europe? Made me chuckle, but not as much as the metaphor of a burglar with an EU t-shirt on sneaking into 'UK House' and nicking things. Thankfully though, if we vote UKIP we can stop nasty Euro-burglars from stealing our property, apparently...
Once again, they trot out the 'statistic' of 75% of laws passed being made by Brussels, and apparently we have no control over them. I'm no expert on European legislation, but I'm pretty sure member states have the final say on which laws are passed in their country still. Also, its all well and good saying 'we pay a membership fee of £40 million a day', but that conveniently ignores all the money that flows back in to the country in grants for projects. Then they move on to talk about immigration and how we shouldn't be letting poor people from Eastern Europe into the country? Seriously? I love how parties like UKIP keep referring to the vast swathes of immigrants who never quite come in their millions in reality. Pointless scaremongering.
UKIP's focus on getting MEPs has confused me for quite a while anyway. They seem to cling to some belief that by getting elected they can 'take the system down from the inside'. If they had any sense, surely they would focus on the general elections, as Westminster is the only body that can actually achieve their aim of removing us from the EU. As it stands, all they are doing is trying to pick up protest votes from the main parties, a point rammed home by their leader and the old Conservative donator wheeled out at the end of the broadcast. And no, Mr. Farage, I do not think that the most important question facing us surrounds our EU membership which, in my opinion, actually benefits us a lot more than people realise. That is why I will NOT be voting for UKIP next week.
Christian Party & Christian People's Alliance
Apparently these guys 'exist to challenge the secular agenda of the main parties'. I'm not sure there is such a thing, and I'll always be of the opinion that a political system based on secularity can only be a good thing. I could also write a whole other post on whether the values they espouse are exclusively Christian values (in my opinion, they are not). I also think religion should be kept separate from politics so I'm not entirely keen on these guys. Nonetheless, some of what they say and the values they talk about are ones I think are quite fair. Still, I'd be interested to see what their views are on where other religions stand and in particular on their views towards atheists or agnostics. What if people don't believe in a society founded on 'respect for God'? This is something that isn't clear from this broadcast. Either way, I'd sooner have an MEP from these parties than any of the anti-EU parties or the BNP though.
British National Party, 26th May
Speaking of the BNP, they have broadcasts too albeit very poor ones. I'll at least try to tone down my views for this post, but I can't promise anything!
So, it starts with a voiceover wistfully recalling a bygone era where we had fields (apparently, these have gone??), a working health service (was fine last time my family used it), honest politicians (seriously??) and safe streets (yeah, because no-one ever got abducted or killed back in 'the day', did they?). I find it amusing how parties like the BNP and, to a lesser extent, the likes of the Daily Mail newspaper, always seem to go about with the belief that everything was rosy back in the 1950s. They say we British built a happy society, though they ignore the contributions of millions from the British empire who fought for us to have a free and happy society, not to mention the immigrants from the empire & Commonwealth who came here to help rebuild Britain post-World War Two.
Then, like so often in this recent campaign, they go on to invoke the sacrifices of our soldiers in the aforementioned War. This really pisses me off personally, as we all know that these brave people fought and died so we would not have to live under a regime with the kind of views that the BNP advocates. Oh and the conflation of a Nazi-dominated Europe with the European Union is absolutely ridiculous, as is comparing modern-day immigrants to the spectre of Nazi soldiers invading the UK. Apparently 'political correctness' strips us of our heritage, bringing in such horrible concepts as diversity, equality and human rights: oh no! Please, whatever will we do! Also, I'm pretty certain no Council has EVER torn down an English flag.
Then Nick Griffin appears, saying 'lets be clear, the BNP doesn't blame the immigrants'. Yes you do, Mr. Griffin. And, yes it is about racism because your own party prohibits non-white membership and wants all such people deported!
Green Party, 27th May
My word, a party broadcast actually setting out clear policies, some of which are related to Europe! I'll admit, I've never really considered voting Green before and I'd imagine a fair few people would say the same, but this broadcast was probably my favourite of the bunch. It pretty much hits all the criteria of what a political broadcast should contain, in my view: clear policies, clear statements of what the party has achieved, and a clear statement of why one should vote for them. Pity that their campaign leaflets, from what I've seen, aren't that impressive. Hopefully a fair few people will have seen this broadcast; on reflection, I certainly wouldn't begrudge the Green Party picking up a few more seats in Europe.
Anyway, I think thats enough for now! Hope it was an interesting read, and make sure you get out and vote on Thursday!
Thursday 21 May 2009
First post and some observations on Eurovision 09
Ok everyone, so this is my second foray into the world of 'blogging'. I did set one up briefly a while ago but my commitment to these kinds of things tends not to be maintained for long, so it disappeared after a couple of entries. But recently I've found blogs written by my friends to be quite interesting reads, so I've been somewhat inspired to set up my own. I aim to update this one fairly regularly, and will at least try to engage a bit more in this blogging business, so please keep an eye out for updates!
Just so you know, this blog will not be a journal so you won't be getting updated on my day-to-day thoughts/activities (I prefer to use Facebook statuses for that every now and then). Instead, most of my entries will be on politics or current affairs, though not exclusively! For example, for my first entry I thought I'd talk about something relatively light-hearted: the Eurovision Song Contest! Now, I know this is much maligned but even in recent years with the endemic political voting I've still found it worth watching because occasionally the contest does throw up some genuinely good songs, and also some absolutely hilarious ones (certainly reason to watch the semi-finals as well as the main event!). Nonetheless, I think everyone was getting a bit tired with the farcical back-scratching between neighbouring countries in the voting and the more I think about it, this year's change to the voting system (where the results are decided in each country 50/50 between a jury and telephone voting) has probably saved the contest somewhat. The big four countries who get the automatic entry to the final made an effort with their entries this year and I do think that they may all have considered withdrawing from Eurovision entirely if they'd have been screwed over by political voting again. Who knows?
Anyway, so I think Andrew Lloyd Webber hit the nail on the head when he stated that Eurovision had 'become a song contest again' or something along those lines. For the most part, the final table in my opinion was a fair reflection of the relative quality of songs in the contest, and for the most part, the best entries got through to the final. (Personally I thought Slovenia's entry was pretty cool and I liked Ireland's as well). The best part of all, however, was that for the first time in years I actually felt proud of Britain's entry. I wasn't convinced Jade was the right choice to sing the song at first but she won me over. She, along with everyone else involved in writing/performing the song, really made an effort with it and this was reflected in the fact that we picked up a very respectable points total. The only question is how do we do that well again next year? It will be interesting to see what happens, just as long as we don't go back to sending reality TV rejects every year.
Here’s a few thoughts on some of the contestants that stood out for me from Eurovision 2009:
Portugal: I quite liked this one; the set-up was really cool, loved the instruments, and the song itself has a certain relaxing quality about it. Perhaps lacked a certain something to really make it grab people's attention though.
Russia: The song they won with last year wasn't too bad, but this one was just...well...depressing. Deservedly didn't make the top ten.
Azerbaijan: Another that finished where it deserved to in my opinion. Stood out above some of the other similar entries and was quite catchy.
Denmark: Co-written by Ronan Keating and boy, you could tell! Part of me did wonder if the singer was in fact related to Ronan in some way. Either that or he idolises the former Boyzone member. Good song though, and 13th place was a bit harsh in my opinion.
Germany: Now, this wouldn't have been that bad if the performance hadn't been clearly geared towards parading Dita Von Teese in a corset on stage. Maybe an ill-advised grab for the male vote? Who knows? Either way it didn't work.
Albania: Average song. Not that I could comment on it in any detail because I was sat there wondering why on earth there was a green gimp (as accurately described by the guy commentating on the semi-final) on stage manhandling the singer. Oh and the Joker/mime makeup on the backing dancers was just weird as well.
Norway: The main singer pulled a few too many smug faces for my liking during his song, but overall a good track and a deserved winner.
Ukraine: Incredibly cheesy, right down to the scantily-clad Romans who looked like they'd been picked up from a lady's night or a hen party somewhere. Made me laugh though, and every Eurovision needs a few acts like this just for sheer hilarity.
Just so you know, this blog will not be a journal so you won't be getting updated on my day-to-day thoughts/activities (I prefer to use Facebook statuses for that every now and then). Instead, most of my entries will be on politics or current affairs, though not exclusively! For example, for my first entry I thought I'd talk about something relatively light-hearted: the Eurovision Song Contest! Now, I know this is much maligned but even in recent years with the endemic political voting I've still found it worth watching because occasionally the contest does throw up some genuinely good songs, and also some absolutely hilarious ones (certainly reason to watch the semi-finals as well as the main event!). Nonetheless, I think everyone was getting a bit tired with the farcical back-scratching between neighbouring countries in the voting and the more I think about it, this year's change to the voting system (where the results are decided in each country 50/50 between a jury and telephone voting) has probably saved the contest somewhat. The big four countries who get the automatic entry to the final made an effort with their entries this year and I do think that they may all have considered withdrawing from Eurovision entirely if they'd have been screwed over by political voting again. Who knows?
Anyway, so I think Andrew Lloyd Webber hit the nail on the head when he stated that Eurovision had 'become a song contest again' or something along those lines. For the most part, the final table in my opinion was a fair reflection of the relative quality of songs in the contest, and for the most part, the best entries got through to the final. (Personally I thought Slovenia's entry was pretty cool and I liked Ireland's as well). The best part of all, however, was that for the first time in years I actually felt proud of Britain's entry. I wasn't convinced Jade was the right choice to sing the song at first but she won me over. She, along with everyone else involved in writing/performing the song, really made an effort with it and this was reflected in the fact that we picked up a very respectable points total. The only question is how do we do that well again next year? It will be interesting to see what happens, just as long as we don't go back to sending reality TV rejects every year.
Here’s a few thoughts on some of the contestants that stood out for me from Eurovision 2009:
Portugal: I quite liked this one; the set-up was really cool, loved the instruments, and the song itself has a certain relaxing quality about it. Perhaps lacked a certain something to really make it grab people's attention though.
Russia: The song they won with last year wasn't too bad, but this one was just...well...depressing. Deservedly didn't make the top ten.
Azerbaijan: Another that finished where it deserved to in my opinion. Stood out above some of the other similar entries and was quite catchy.
Denmark: Co-written by Ronan Keating and boy, you could tell! Part of me did wonder if the singer was in fact related to Ronan in some way. Either that or he idolises the former Boyzone member. Good song though, and 13th place was a bit harsh in my opinion.
Germany: Now, this wouldn't have been that bad if the performance hadn't been clearly geared towards parading Dita Von Teese in a corset on stage. Maybe an ill-advised grab for the male vote? Who knows? Either way it didn't work.
Albania: Average song. Not that I could comment on it in any detail because I was sat there wondering why on earth there was a green gimp (as accurately described by the guy commentating on the semi-final) on stage manhandling the singer. Oh and the Joker/mime makeup on the backing dancers was just weird as well.
Norway: The main singer pulled a few too many smug faces for my liking during his song, but overall a good track and a deserved winner.
Ukraine: Incredibly cheesy, right down to the scantily-clad Romans who looked like they'd been picked up from a lady's night or a hen party somewhere. Made me laugh though, and every Eurovision needs a few acts like this just for sheer hilarity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)