X-Factor Democracy Is Bad News For Minarets

During a Newsnight interview with Kirsty Wark broadcast last Monday (14/12/2009), Simon Cowell proposed the idea of an X-Factor style politics programme. In his proposal the great British public would be given the chance to vote referendum style on the big issues of the day, sending a clear message to the Government on how they should be dealt with.

It is easy to be cynical. You could fear that Cowell's comments are a dangerous statement of intent from a megalomaniacal control freak who, no longer satisfied with dictating the nation's music tastes, has his surgically lifted eyes fixed on running the country. Alternatively you could also dismiss his comments as naive and ridiculous, noting that very few big political decisions come down to a simple yes/no decision.

To Cowell's credit he was honest about his political naivety and made clear he would never host or even appear on such a show. What Cowell has done, perhaps inadvertently, is to tap into an ever increasing distrust of the political system and the political class in this country. More than ever, following the drawn out saga of the expenses scandal and unpopular wars in the Middle East, British people feel Westminster has lost all accountability to the masses. Unless Cameron can impress upon the electorate that he is a new type of political leader, and it will take more than a dodgy portrait, the next election will in all probability have a very low turnout.

So some might say Cowell's televised referendums are just what the nation needs but political populism is not the utopian answer it may seem. The direct democratic process in Switzerland recently banned the building of minarets in its country, despite the decision causing alarm and confusion around the world. The referendum victory for those who wanted to ban building minarets was achieved because of a low voter turnout and a very affective campaign. Despite Switzerland only having four minarets, its populous was sufficiently scared enough to believe that the construction of anymore would lead to the countries total Islamification and the introduction of Sharia law.

The problem with public votes is that the majority of those who can be bothered to take part in them often make strange decisions. Those who follow local politics will be aware of the monkey who was elected mayor of Hartlepool and those who watch X-Factor will know all about the bizarre success of Jedward. Voters can also be highly influenced by PR and media campaigns and see dangers and problems, like in minaret referendum, where none exist. 

Our democracy is not built on the masses making important decisions; it is built on electing politicians to take those decisions on our behalf. Members of the general public do not need to be experts on fiscal policy, the management of local services or foreign diplomacy, politicians are paid to do this for us. Cowell's X-Factor democracy may energise political debate if it ever happens but it should not be allowed to influence policy making. If it does, Britain may end up with its own equivalent to the minaret ban.       
    

Guantanamo Bay- by Peter Turener's Circus from freddy123 - Video

Guantanamo Bay- by Peter Turener's Circus from freddy123 - Video

The Sack Race

Paul Hart has become the first Premier League manager to be sacked of the 2009/10 season after being given the boot by bottom club Portsmouth. The world of top flight football is a ruthless one and it does not take long for chairman/owners of a modern football club to decide the playing staff have the wrong boss.

The betting on which manager will be first for the axe each year, or the 'sack race', has become big business for bookies. This year's recipient of the ignoble honour is not a surprise to many but the speed of the sacking has been. Portsmouth lie rock bottom of the league table and underperforming managers are rarely given much time in the Premiership. Below is a list of all of the 'winners' of the sack race during the Noughties, most of whom were not afforded as much time as Hart. (Note that these only include sackings, not resignations or partings on mutual grounds, which occured during the season.)

So what do we learn about the sack list? Well if you make it onto the list you are unlikely to get another job as a Premiership manager. Only Peter Reid has won the race in the past ten years and managed at the top level of English football again, although this was with Leeds in the midst of their death spiral. So don't expect to be seeing Paul Hart appearing in a post match interview on Match of the Day anytime soon.

A couple of clubs seem more keen than most to help their managers win the prize, with both Portsmouth and Tottenham appearing twice. Between their foundation in 1898 and 1988, Portsmouth had 18 different managers. They have now had 18 managers in the 21 years since 1988 and coincidently so have Tottenham. Portsmouth managed to avoid relegation the last time they dished out the award and they will be hoping Avram Grant delivers a similar miracle this time around.

Few of the managers on the list have been successful with other clubs after winning the award, with Alain Perrin the notable exception, and for most it is the start of a terminal decline. Hart should take comfort though that he may now be able to secure a role on television instead. Peter Taylor, Peter Reid, Glenn Hoddle and Iain Dowie all regularly appear as football pundits on British TV and Gianluca Vialli is now a presenter and commentator with Sky Italia. If you win the sack race it would seem, you earn the privilege of telling a television audience just what managers still in jobs are doing wrong.

The most surprising aspect of the list is that the sadly deceased super manager Bobby Robson is on it and that he is in fact the ultimate 'winner' having been sacked the earliest out of all of them. This perhaps shows how sacking your manager early in the season is not always a wise move, with Robson's exit arguably beginning Newcastle's spiral of despair which led to their relegation last season. The season before Sir Bobby left Newcastle they finished 5th in the league, under Robson's replacement Graeme Souness the next year they finished 14th.

Only time will tell if Portsmouth have made the right decision.
 


The Sack List   

2009/10 - Paul Hart

Date of sacking: 25th November 2009

Club: Portsmouth

Clubs final league position that season: N/A

Manager's recent history: Hart was offered Technical Director role but was sacked while making up his mind.

2008/09 - Juande Ramos

Date of sacking: 25th October 2008

Club: Tottenham Hotspur

Club's final league position that season: 8th

Manager's recent history: Ramos seems to specialise in short spells with clubs, in fact his tenures are ever diminishing. After leaving Spurs he was hired by Real Madrid in December 2009, much to the british media's shock. He signed a contract until the end of the season which was not renewed. Then in September 2009 he signed a three month contract with CSKA Moscow which he only served 47 days of before leaving with the consent of the club.

2007/08 - Sammy Lee

Date of sacking: 17th October 2007

Club: Bolton

Club's final league position that season: 16th

Manager's recent history: Lee got the job at Bolton after being the No.2 to Sam Alladyce and after a short hiatus the human hamster returned to coaching in May 2008 as assistant manager to Rafa Benitez at his old club Liverpool.

2006/07 - Iain Dowie

Date of sacking: 14th October 2007

Club: Charlton

Club's final league position that season: 19th (Relegated)

Manager's recent history: Sexy Mr Dowie seems to have a thing for the number 15 as that was the amount of games he was in charge of both Charlton and QPR(May to October 2008) before recieving his P45. In between was a spell at Coventry which he lasted seven days short of a calendar year before a bust-up with the board on 11th February 2008. He had a brief spell earlier this year as Alan Shearer's assistant at Newcastle.

2005/06 - Alain Perrin

Date of sacking: 24th November 2005

Club: Portsmouth
Club's final league position that season: 17th
Manager's recent history: 'Reggie' has had a pretty successful career in French football since leaving Pompy, winning the French Cup with FC Sochaux in 2007 and then doing a league and cup double with Olympic Lyonnais the following season. He is currently manager of AS Saint-Etienne.
 


2004/05 - Bobby Robson
 
Date of sacking: 30th August 2004

Club: Newcastle
Club's final league position that season: 14th
Manager's recent history: After being sacked by Freddy Shepherd Sir Bobby never returned to football managment and died earlier this year. Between January 2006 and November 2007 he held the role of International Football Consultant (whatever that means) under the then manager of Republic of Ireland, Steve Staunton.


2003-04 - Glenn Hoddle
 
Date of sacking: 21st September

Club: Tottenham
Club's final league position that season: 14th
Manager's recent history: Faith healing Hoddle managed Wolverhampton Wanderers between December 2004 and July 2006, during this spell Wolves had hopes high of promotion to the Premiership but drew 34 out of 76 games with him in charge.Hoddle has not managed a club since, while without him Wolves finally made it to the Premiership.


2002/03 - Peter Reid

Date of sacking: 7th October 2002

Club: Sunderland
Club's final league position that season: 20th (Relagated)
Manager's recent history: Reid was sacked as Leeds manager in November 2003 eight months after taking over from Terry Venables. He was then hired as manager of Coventry in May 2004 but only lasted eight months again. He lasted a whole year managing the Thai national team before leaving in September 2009 to become Tony Pulis' assistant manager at Stoke City.


2001/02 - Peter Taylor

Date of sacking: 1st October 2001

Club: Leicester
Club's final league position that season: 20th (Relegated)
Manager's recent history: Since leaving Leicester, Taylor has managed Brighton & Hove Albion, Hull City, Crystal Palace, the England Under 21's, Stevenage Borough and Wycombe Wanderers. He was sacked as Wycombe manager on 9th October 2009.


2000/01 - Gianluca Vialli

Date of sacking: 12th September 2000

Club: Chelsea
Club's final league position that season: 6th
Manager's recent history: The former European Cup winner only managed one other club after leaving Chelsea. He spent the 2001/02 season at Watford before being sacked for finishing 14th in the old First Division.

The Very Worst News

I am gutted that 'The Very Best' have cancelled their upcoming gig at ICA in London and that I am going to have to make the call to get a refund on my 4 tickets for 30th November. If you haven't heard any of these guys beautifully infectious music check it out on Youtube, I challenge anybody to resist the urge to move their body whilst listening.

The reason for their cancellation is down to visa problems. I have written on Riveronline about the new points based system for immigration which has been a complete pain in the arse for international students this year. This new Labour initiative to appease the right-wing press is supposed to make it more difficult for bogus applicants to make it into the country but recent reports have shown it is not working. The criminals are still getting in with fake documents, whereas plenty of talented economy booster are being kept out.

That was bad enough but now they have crossed a line by refusing Esau Mwamwaya (singer of The Very Best) a visa. Immigration control is supposed to help protect our country against damaging outside influences right? Well how is stopping these guys from making sweet music live in London good for the UK? It is certainly not good for me and I am pretty pissed about it.

This is clearly a case of cultural injustice, unless of course one of the travelling party is revealed as an international arms struggler, or convicted murderer. Then it probably is justified.

24/11/09 - Just asked Radioclit on Twitter why Esau's visa got rejected by UK immigration, hoping to get an exclusive, and they replied with "because there wankers". Not very informative but probably about right.

Democracy denied

So Blair was denied the EU Presidency, despite the unanamous wishes of the readers of this blog. Mackboy's highly representative and extensive poll found 100% of people anywhere in the world wanted the ex-PM as the President. So democracy has been denied and the EU has gone against the wishes of the people (though to most Daily Mail readers this will not come of much suprise).

So instead we have been given President Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian Prime minister who does not even make it into the top 250 Belgians list, but at least we know how to pronounce his name now thanks to BBC Newsnight.

If you what to find out more about him google him but there does not seem to be much of interest. The EU seems to have hired him so as not to upset anyone, here is what he says about future negotiations he will chair: "Every country should emerge victorious from negotiations. A negotiation that ends with a defeated party is never a good negotiation. I will consider everyone's interests and sensitivities. Even if our unity remains our strength, our diversity remains our wealth."

Now you would never catch Blair saying that, more like "stuff what you think because I think I am right". Rompuy's attitude does seem a bit idealist to me though, I have always prescribed to the thinking the best outcome of negotiations is when boths sides are disapointed. Each to there own though.

So he is super diplomatic and will not upset anyone right? Well tell that to Turkey, he said five years ago that they should not join the EU. Something about not diluting the Christian core of Europe. Maybe his views have changed now but if not the placid Belgian might cause more waves for the other EU leaders than they had predicted.

With those sort of views he will probably get on well with the new Tory government, how boring. It could have been so different.

Hoildays in Baghdad

I need to share this article with anyone who did not read it yesterday:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6910179.ece

For those who can't be bothered to read it, the story is about a seemingly hapless Iraq's tourist board official who has come to Britain in an attempt to raise the profile of their country as a holiday destination.

Stand out quotes:

"It has improved a great deal since 2005, when officials in Basra offered tourists a “70 to 80 per cent chance you will be okay”."

"When asked what sort of people they were hoping would visit, he replied: “Foreigners.”"

"Tim Moore, managing director of Toursmart, an online travel magazine, felt that Iraq would need at least two or three years without “people still being blown up” before it could be sold in Britain as a place to visit"

I can wait two or three years. The place looks beautiful and full of culture and history, as this BBC article points out. I remember Lonely Planet releasing a statement a couple of years ago naming Northern Ireland as the place to visit only years after hostilities ended. Having been to beautiful Bosnia (or the heart-shaped land) i can tell you that former war zones make great tourist destinations.

Iraq in 2012 is going to be dead cheap too, at the moment you get 1200 Iraq Dinar to the Dollar and their biggest note is only 250 dinars. Sure there will be inflation but you will still be able to live like a king on very little. You could probably stay in one of Saddam's former palaces.

As long as you can drink in the hotels I am up for it. Tourist money is probably going to help reconstruction more than UK and US occupation did, so be a part of the solution.

So who wants a ticket to Basra?

Is violence the answer?

On a wet April afternoon last year, myself and a couple of friends made our way to Victoria Park in London for the Love Music Hate Racism Carnival. Despite the soggy weather and rather poor musical line-up we cheered ourselves with beer and soggy burgers. On entering the park we were left in no doubt as to the political stance of the event as we were bombarded with flyers from amongst others TUC, Unite, SWP and Respect members (including rather bizarrely a former Big Brother contestant), imploring us to support the workers and bring down capitalism etc. Unsurprisingly the majority of the festival goers displayed their political apathy by dropping the flyers a few yards from where they were handed out. Possibly the most pleasing aspect of the afternoon was when Ken Livingston was roundly jeered taking to the stage, cynically using the platform to increase his 'yoof' vote in the upcoming mayoral election.

Overall I found the event rather underwhelming, and most of the crowd seemed to think so too. As the crowd became increasingly bored of their repetitive and annoyingly catchy tripe, the lead singer from Hard-Fi would periodically to try an energise hi audience by asking: 'Who here hates racism?'. The crowd would roar with approval and the singer, reassured at hearing applause again would start playing his ridiculous melodica. While this was happening i kept asking myself the question, do i really hate racism? I do not like it certainly, I find anyone with racist views pretty abhorrent and fail to understand how a first world education system can produce people with such clearly unfounded views, but hate? I thought the main danger posed by racists is that they spread hatred. They single out people different from themselves and say they should be hated. Here i was however in the middle of a park saying everybody in the world is great, except racists, because we hate them.

It might seem like a slight point but i was reminded of this during the recent protest again the BNP outside the BBC studios, where there was a lot of hatred aimed toward that particular group of uneducated miscreants. The politicians in the studio could not control their anger and neither could the violent protesters outside. The danger in the way the whole episode was conducted is that the BNP could have been perceived as victims and actually gain support. That's the problem when any protest spills into hateful violence, no matter how justified the protesters aims they will lose the sympathy of the majority.

When i was a child, students and adolescences did not seem to protest much, they were part of 'Generation X' who did not care about anything. Now there seems to be an increase in protesting, political and moral. In a way this is great and it is to my eternal shame i did not join a friend of mine who marched on London to protest the Iraq war. At the time I agreed with the cause millions of people around the world were fighting but i just could not be bothered to make the trip. Even though Blair and Bush swept to war regardless, I wish I could say I was the one of the ones who stood up and said 'this is wrong'.

The London G20 protest on the other hand seemed misdirected and fairly futile in comparison. Did any good come of smashing the front of the local branch of RBS in Bank? Were those responsible for the credit crunch held to account? No, but a man completely unconnected to the protests might still be alive if the police had not resorted to such heavy-handed measures to try and control the protesters violence. This is not to excuse the police's methods but by the protesters being violent they were giving the police an excuse to use violent measures.

I believe protest successes in the age of mass media come through peaceful means because the image of the attacked will always draw more sympathy then that of the attacker. In the age of Youtube and Twitter these images are shown round the world, as we have seen recently with Iranian oppression following their elections. Joining in a riot at the time can seem like fun, just like getting unintelligibly drunk, but if you were to see yourself through another person's eyes you would probably be pretty embarrassed and maybe even ashamed.

This is why I think the word 'hate' and slogans like 'Smash the BNP' are counterproductive. We want people passionate about current issues but not if they are just spoiling for a fight. This is an ideological battle not a physical one. So please oppose the BNP, expose the BNP but do not hate them. Leave the hating to the fascists.

The Cover-Up dazzle despite dodgy digits

The mighty Cover Up were frighteningly good at the Elephant and Castle last weekend. The classics kept coming from the fiendish four-piece despite one member suffering a potentially gig wrecking blood blister on his index finger.

The musician who did not want to be named due to modesty said: "My finger really started hurting during 'Billie Jean' but i couldn't stop, 'Summer of 69 was next'.

What a hero!

Some drugs stories are bigger than others

The sacking of David Nutt has been portrayed by the UK media as both one man's heroic struggle against the government's misguided war on drugs and also as one man's attempts to thrust his left-wing opinions onto the masses. Both versions of events are a little fanciful.

David Nutt, i suspect, is not banging the drum for the re-classification of drugs in the UK purely out of altruistic motives. I am sure he believes what he is saying but he is being so vocal about policy change now because he has been humiliated in public by Alan Johnson. In return he wants to give Mr Johnson a little ear ache. He has certainly succeeded in doing that and the embarrassment for the Home Secretary has amplified in recent days with an increasing amount of the scientific community ready support Nutt.

If you read Nutt's lecture (part published in the Guardian today) for which he was sacked, his claims on the dangers of drugs do not seem that controversial. Fighting the other side of the argument, Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail supports the present classification of ecstacy and cocaine and dismisses Nutt's appeals for a re-think. She quotes other scientists whose evidence shows that ecstasy is as powerful as cocaine and that cannabis can cause psychosis and schizophrenia.

Ah, Prof. Nutty has been exposed as a snake-oil salesman then. Well no because David Nutt seems to agree with the Phillips' scientists (maybe they all read the same research?).

In his lecture, Nutt explains: "What we can say is that cannabis use is associated with an increased experience of psychotic disorders...if you use a lot of it, it will make you more prone to having psychotic experiences. That includes schizophrenia".

He does point out however that schizophrenia numbers have fallen in the country over the last thirty years as cannabis use has massively increased, which would seem argue against a direct cause and effect.

Phillips' other argument about how 'powerful' ecstasy is seems intentionally misleading, of course its strong otherwise so many young people wouldn't take it, what Nutt said was it was less deadly - something very different.

This leads on to the most interesting part of David Nutt's argument. He says that one of the problems with the public drugs debate is that the media reports a very distorted view of the situation. A research study in Scotland between 1990 and 1999 showed there were 2,255 drug deaths, of which the Scottish newspapers reported 546. Amazingly 26 out of 28, almost all, where ecstasy was proved to be a contributing factor, were reported in the press. You can imagine the headlines too "Another young victim murdered by death drug". Over the same period 2,000 to 3,000 Scots died as a result of alcohol.

I don't like to think of myself as naive and i try to question everything i read in the news, but i was shocked by his evidence. I don't think I really do know the truth about how dangerous different drugs are. If it is not reported how many people die as a result of taking morphine, i am going to be uniformed as to the drugs relative dangers.

Of course there are very real dangers to the drugs being discussed in this deabate and many tragic stories. Its hard for a newspaper to report a ecstasy fatality without recalling those distressing images connected to the death of Leah Betts . Lots of activities are dangerous however, horseriding included as Proff Nutt pointed out, and their dangers should be reported in an accurate way.

The truth is never going to get in the way of a good story though, and maybe some drugs stories like girls for Morrisey, will always be bigger than others.

Bring on President Blair

There is a lot of talk in Westminster this week about the possibility of us all bowing down to EU President Blair if the Lisbon Treaty is signed.

I think this would be brilliant for UK politics.

If anyone needs any evidence for this they need only read how appossed the Tories are. One shadow minister was quoted by the mail today as saying 'The message is clear: you can have President Blair and five years of internecine warfare with Britain over Europe; or you can have another president and a good working relationship,'

Bring on the internecine warfare!

What theatre it will be to see PM David Cameron in one corner of the ring and President Blair in the other.

On a serious note though, i think that Europe will have increasing difficulties maintaining a voice on the world stage and i think their is a danger that world politcs could boil down to a G2 consisting USA and China. If the Conservatives form the next government (it might not happen), they will certainly be an obstacle to an more unified Europe.

Blair however is best buddies with Barack , he "did it first and perhaps did it better than I will do" apparently. Obama wants a unified Europe that works and I want a leader he is going to listen to, not like the most recent rotating EU President Fredrik Reinfeldt who was blanked by the US President at a recent conference.

Today we have heard that the leaders of Europe have doubts over Blair's suitablility, charges of leading a illegal war are not great on a CV it seems. I hope they reconsider though, not only would his appointment lead to great headlines at home but it might help amplify Europe's voice in world politics.