In case you missed it, England failed in their bid to host the 2018 football World Cup, a result that brought about reactions that ranged from balanced, to restrained criticism of the process, through to the frankly ridiculous. Having spent £15m on acquiring just one vote from other countries' representatives (oddly, from Issa Hayatou, one of the "Panorama Three"), England's bid chief Andy Anson began to deflect blame for the failure onto pretty much everyone but himself. He said that FIFA members had reneged on promises to vote for the England bid (how dare they!) and had given him the reasons for the bid's failure: "I'll caveat this by saying this is not our excuse at all. But they are saying to us that our media killed us" he said, making it sound suspiciously like an excuse after all.
FIFA president Sepp Blatter's response to the predictable accusations of corruption within his organisation is to portray England as bad losers, rubbing salt into the wound by adding "England, of all people, the motherland of fair-play ideas". Irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of such accusations, Blatter is right in as much as Anson and co. are displaying a typically English approach to relations with other countries and international organisations in general - especially when they are not of English-speaking heritage. The general impression is that of a xenophobic mistrust of all things foreign: when England don't win something, Johnny Foreigner must have cheated. This is not confined to football - our current attitude to FIFA (and to a lesser extent UEFA) is mirrored in our political attitudes towards Europe over the years. We appear happier to be on the outside, trying to take the moral high ground over untrustworthy foreign types. It is our unwillingness to engage fully with such organisations and try to gain influence and promote change from within that often leaves us out in the cold, causing mistrust and suspicion to breed on both sides of the divide, do the ultimate disadvantage of all involved.
In the race to host the 2018 World Cup, it is our failure to engage and nurture relationships with FIFA delegates that did most to damage England's campaign, rather than any accusatory media stories. Fostering such relationships would have helped England's bid team to a) understand what criteria were to be applied to bids, and focus the English bid accordingly; b) gain greater influence over FIFA delegates when trying to convince them of the merit of our bid. In the longer term, it would also give us a position of greater strength if we wish to highlight and eradicate any alleged corruption within FIFA.
It is arguable that in any event, none of the western European bids stood a chance given FIFA's evident desire to spread the gospel of football to relatively uncharted waters, but it is our stubborn isolationism that Andy Anson and co. should be concentrating on, rather than simply throwing their toys out of the pram.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
Monday, 11 October 2010
Doesn't it make you mad - Linda Norgrove
The first casualty of war is the truth - and it seems we are faced with yet another example of this in the Linda Norgrove affair. This story bears all the hallmarks of why so many people are so critical of American foreign policy - and why they are so critical at the fact that we in the UK continue to follow and suppport the US.
For a start, the US and UK have made themselves very unpopular in the the Muslim world, which makes their citizens a more likely target for kidnappings of this kind (which is not the same as saying this unpopularity is deserved (though it is understandable), and nor is it the same as saying that they are to blame for the kidnappings).
Secondly, with stereotypical self-confidence it seems the US forces ignored local advice in preventing influential local elders and mullahs from negotiating with the captors so that they could rush in using force.
Thirdly, having chosen aggression over negotiation, they screwed it up. In general, they may well be a very professional, effective fighting unit, but they attract too many 'friendly fire' headlines - here's just one.
And finally, having done all that, it seems they lied about what happened.
Imperialism, arrogance, aggression, incompetence, dishonesty. While I'd like to think that with Tony Blair gone, we'll hold them fully to account for this, I suspect that our 'special relationship' with the US will prevent us (or rather, David Cameron) from doing this. But wouldn't it be great if, just for once, David Cameron would say publicly to Barack Obama "You gung-ho Americans have once again gone in unthinkingly, with all guns blazing, and caused the death of yet another innocent civilian. We've had enough, the rest of the world's had enough. Grow up, and start behaving like a civilised country."
For a start, the US and UK have made themselves very unpopular in the the Muslim world, which makes their citizens a more likely target for kidnappings of this kind (which is not the same as saying this unpopularity is deserved (though it is understandable), and nor is it the same as saying that they are to blame for the kidnappings).
Secondly, with stereotypical self-confidence it seems the US forces ignored local advice in preventing influential local elders and mullahs from negotiating with the captors so that they could rush in using force.
Thirdly, having chosen aggression over negotiation, they screwed it up. In general, they may well be a very professional, effective fighting unit, but they attract too many 'friendly fire' headlines - here's just one.
And finally, having done all that, it seems they lied about what happened.
Imperialism, arrogance, aggression, incompetence, dishonesty. While I'd like to think that with Tony Blair gone, we'll hold them fully to account for this, I suspect that our 'special relationship' with the US will prevent us (or rather, David Cameron) from doing this. But wouldn't it be great if, just for once, David Cameron would say publicly to Barack Obama "You gung-ho Americans have once again gone in unthinkingly, with all guns blazing, and caused the death of yet another innocent civilian. We've had enough, the rest of the world's had enough. Grow up, and start behaving like a civilised country."
Out of date opinion (1) - Nick Clegg
I should have posted this around the time of the Lib Dem conference, but for various reasons (mainly that I couldn't be bothered) I didn't get around to it.
I'm wondering why Nick Clegg is so unpopular. After the election, he was faced with a near impossible situation. The Lib Dems' preferred partners for a coalition would be Labour, but there were two main reasons why they could not embark on this course.
Firstly, Labour had clearly lost the election and Gordon Brown had been rejected by the electorate. Propping up Labour as the government and Brown as PM would be a kick in the teeth for democracy.
Secondly, the numbers didn't add up anyway. Even the combined total of Labour and Lib Dem MP's would not have constituted a majority in the House of Commons. Any coalition with Labour would also have required other parties to join, such as Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, and Northern Ireland MP's which would have created a very unwieldy and unstable coalition at the mercy of factions even smaller than the Lib Dems themselves - and still with a very small majority in the Commons.
The second course of action open to Clegg was to refuse to join a coalition at all which would mean leaving the Tories to govern with a minority government, or force a second election. If there was a second election (at great cost to the taxpayer), the result would have been a Conservative majority, so we'd have waited longer, at greater cost, for roughly the same scenario (only without the Lib Dems having any opportunity at all to influence government actions whatsoever).
The Lib Dems may not like the current electoral system, but at least they are playing by the rules. Out of the coalition's 363 MP's, they have 57 - approximately 16 percent. So 16 percent of the coalition's policies should be Lib Dem policy, which seems about right so far. Which leaves 84% as Conservative policy, the major part of which is the spending review and associated cuts. Quite why Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems are being blamed for these is unclear - and unfair.
I'm wondering why Nick Clegg is so unpopular. After the election, he was faced with a near impossible situation. The Lib Dems' preferred partners for a coalition would be Labour, but there were two main reasons why they could not embark on this course.
Firstly, Labour had clearly lost the election and Gordon Brown had been rejected by the electorate. Propping up Labour as the government and Brown as PM would be a kick in the teeth for democracy.
Secondly, the numbers didn't add up anyway. Even the combined total of Labour and Lib Dem MP's would not have constituted a majority in the House of Commons. Any coalition with Labour would also have required other parties to join, such as Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, and Northern Ireland MP's which would have created a very unwieldy and unstable coalition at the mercy of factions even smaller than the Lib Dems themselves - and still with a very small majority in the Commons.
The second course of action open to Clegg was to refuse to join a coalition at all which would mean leaving the Tories to govern with a minority government, or force a second election. If there was a second election (at great cost to the taxpayer), the result would have been a Conservative majority, so we'd have waited longer, at greater cost, for roughly the same scenario (only without the Lib Dems having any opportunity at all to influence government actions whatsoever).
The Lib Dems may not like the current electoral system, but at least they are playing by the rules. Out of the coalition's 363 MP's, they have 57 - approximately 16 percent. So 16 percent of the coalition's policies should be Lib Dem policy, which seems about right so far. Which leaves 84% as Conservative policy, the major part of which is the spending review and associated cuts. Quite why Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems are being blamed for these is unclear - and unfair.
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Notes on a Papal Visit
The Papal visit is being viewed as a success, although given the negative publicity accompanying the buildup to the event, the bar for 'success' was not set very high.
Part of the evidence of the success of the trip is the fact that the heated debates over funding for the trip, the child abuse scandal, and Catholic doctrine concerning contraception, women and homosexuals are no longer in the news. This despite the fact that the last two in particular remain vital issues which the Catholic Church has yet to address satisfactorily.
On the child abuse scandal, the Pope talking about how the issue affects "all of us [in the Catholic Church]" is a positive sign. And he's on the mark when he says that child abuse by Catholic priests "seriously undermines the moral credibility of church leaders." But while he does now appear to be taking the subject seriously, it's far from saying that the buck stops with him. The Catholic Church can only move forward on this issue and regain lost credibility" if the Pope's talk of child abuse being a "crime", results in meaningful co-operation with civil authorities to bring abusive priests to justice in secular courts. His talk of "reparation" looks like a smoke screen - his actual quote was "Indeed, what better way could there be of making reparation for these sins than by reaching out, in a humble spirit of compassion, towards children who continue to suffer abuse elsewhere?" So the reparation does not mean compensating victims of Catholic priests, but to making efforts to support abused children elsewhere. Which is a worthy aim, but the use of the word "elsewhere" suggests an attempt to move attention away from the Catholic Church's own child abuse scandal.
As for liberalising the Church's doctrine on contraception, abortion, homosexuals, and women priests, this looks as far away as ever. Until these are addressed, the Catholic Church will always be out of step with modern society. Anti-Catholic activists will still have the easy target of saying that by opposing condoms in Africa, the Catholic Church is promoting the over-population of the planet, not to mention the spread of AIDS.
The biggest damage these shortcomings in Catholic doctrine will do is the way the controversy surrounding them overshadows the positive work of the Church. I was brought up as Catholic - and was even an altar boy for a while - and contrary to many people's expections, at no point did the priest try and molest me. With all the negative publicity surrounding religion these days (and here I'm including all religions, but in particular Catholicism and Islam), it is easy to overlook the good things that religion achieves in this country. It gives people a moral code that they might not have acquired from our secular society, it gives people a sense of community, it gives support to people in difficult times, and supports a lot of very worthwhile charitable activities. I might not agree with their belief system, and there may be flaws in the current doctrines, but I can't let that make me see the average Catholic (and indeed Muslim) as immoral or evil, and I certainly wouldn't want to deprive them (and society in general) of the benfits that organised religion brings.
The issue of the cost of the visit is a thorny one. And is difficult to comment upon as estimates of the cost vary between £15m and £55m depending on the agenda of the person making those estimates. Also, it's hard to know what the Church can afford. Allegedly, the 'pastoral' visit by Pope John Paul II in 1982 nearly bankrupted the Church, which would suggest that the church alone could not afford the visit. But it's only a suggestion, as it's very difficult (if not impossible) to assess how much cash the Vatican has to spend on a visit like this.
Declaring it a state visit makes sense. It is a good idea for the UK to be on good terms with a country with the powerful international influence of the Vatican City, especially when you consider that 10% of the UK's population is Catholic. If the UK were to refuse funding, and thus effective prevent or massively curtail the visit, it would lay itself open to accusations of anti-Catholicism, and restriction of the right to religious freedom. Much of the cost comes from the security operation (which is the main source of the wildly varying estimates) but one has to remember that it's not the Catholics that would be causing the potential security problems. So, should taxpayer be stumping up money for the visit? Dunno.
Part of the evidence of the success of the trip is the fact that the heated debates over funding for the trip, the child abuse scandal, and Catholic doctrine concerning contraception, women and homosexuals are no longer in the news. This despite the fact that the last two in particular remain vital issues which the Catholic Church has yet to address satisfactorily.
On the child abuse scandal, the Pope talking about how the issue affects "all of us [in the Catholic Church]" is a positive sign. And he's on the mark when he says that child abuse by Catholic priests "seriously undermines the moral credibility of church leaders." But while he does now appear to be taking the subject seriously, it's far from saying that the buck stops with him. The Catholic Church can only move forward on this issue and regain lost credibility" if the Pope's talk of child abuse being a "crime", results in meaningful co-operation with civil authorities to bring abusive priests to justice in secular courts. His talk of "reparation" looks like a smoke screen - his actual quote was "Indeed, what better way could there be of making reparation for these sins than by reaching out, in a humble spirit of compassion, towards children who continue to suffer abuse elsewhere?" So the reparation does not mean compensating victims of Catholic priests, but to making efforts to support abused children elsewhere. Which is a worthy aim, but the use of the word "elsewhere" suggests an attempt to move attention away from the Catholic Church's own child abuse scandal.
As for liberalising the Church's doctrine on contraception, abortion, homosexuals, and women priests, this looks as far away as ever. Until these are addressed, the Catholic Church will always be out of step with modern society. Anti-Catholic activists will still have the easy target of saying that by opposing condoms in Africa, the Catholic Church is promoting the over-population of the planet, not to mention the spread of AIDS.
The biggest damage these shortcomings in Catholic doctrine will do is the way the controversy surrounding them overshadows the positive work of the Church. I was brought up as Catholic - and was even an altar boy for a while - and contrary to many people's expections, at no point did the priest try and molest me. With all the negative publicity surrounding religion these days (and here I'm including all religions, but in particular Catholicism and Islam), it is easy to overlook the good things that religion achieves in this country. It gives people a moral code that they might not have acquired from our secular society, it gives people a sense of community, it gives support to people in difficult times, and supports a lot of very worthwhile charitable activities. I might not agree with their belief system, and there may be flaws in the current doctrines, but I can't let that make me see the average Catholic (and indeed Muslim) as immoral or evil, and I certainly wouldn't want to deprive them (and society in general) of the benfits that organised religion brings.
The issue of the cost of the visit is a thorny one. And is difficult to comment upon as estimates of the cost vary between £15m and £55m depending on the agenda of the person making those estimates. Also, it's hard to know what the Church can afford. Allegedly, the 'pastoral' visit by Pope John Paul II in 1982 nearly bankrupted the Church, which would suggest that the church alone could not afford the visit. But it's only a suggestion, as it's very difficult (if not impossible) to assess how much cash the Vatican has to spend on a visit like this.
Declaring it a state visit makes sense. It is a good idea for the UK to be on good terms with a country with the powerful international influence of the Vatican City, especially when you consider that 10% of the UK's population is Catholic. If the UK were to refuse funding, and thus effective prevent or massively curtail the visit, it would lay itself open to accusations of anti-Catholicism, and restriction of the right to religious freedom. Much of the cost comes from the security operation (which is the main source of the wildly varying estimates) but one has to remember that it's not the Catholics that would be causing the potential security problems. So, should taxpayer be stumping up money for the visit? Dunno.
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Please God make the "Rooney scores" headlines go away
Hopefully now, over 48 hours after England's mostly impressive win in Switzerland, journalists everywhere can stop making oh-so-hilarious references to Rooney "scoring".
And hopefully there can be an end to the hand-wringing over how terrible it is that a) Rooney cheated on his pregnant wife, and b) the prostitutes involved were - wait for it - MIDDLE CLASS!
Certain media outlets (Daily Mail, for example) seem shocked and appalled that middle class kids can be attention-seeking, can rebel against their parents, and can even go 'off the rails' - as if living in suburbia in a comfortable home on a reasonable income should somehow innoculate the occupants against the more negative aspects of human behaviour that affect the rest of the population.
The actual story here is that a man has cheated on his wife. If Wayne hadn't made it as a footballer, he may have cheated on Colleen with some cheap local tart and they would have had to sort it out between themselves in private. We wouldn't and shouldn't want to intrude on what is essentially a private matter. The fact that he is a famous footballer doesn't make it any of our business.
If you want to talk about prostitution, talk about the tragedy of how many girls feel (or actually are) forced to sell their bodies to make money. That's a bigger and far more pressing problem than two girls whose chosen form of rebellion and whose bad choices have led them into a tabloid scandal.
And hopefully there can be an end to the hand-wringing over how terrible it is that a) Rooney cheated on his pregnant wife, and b) the prostitutes involved were - wait for it - MIDDLE CLASS!
Certain media outlets (Daily Mail, for example) seem shocked and appalled that middle class kids can be attention-seeking, can rebel against their parents, and can even go 'off the rails' - as if living in suburbia in a comfortable home on a reasonable income should somehow innoculate the occupants against the more negative aspects of human behaviour that affect the rest of the population.
The actual story here is that a man has cheated on his wife. If Wayne hadn't made it as a footballer, he may have cheated on Colleen with some cheap local tart and they would have had to sort it out between themselves in private. We wouldn't and shouldn't want to intrude on what is essentially a private matter. The fact that he is a famous footballer doesn't make it any of our business.
If you want to talk about prostitution, talk about the tragedy of how many girls feel (or actually are) forced to sell their bodies to make money. That's a bigger and far more pressing problem than two girls whose chosen form of rebellion and whose bad choices have led them into a tabloid scandal.
Religious extremism (part 2)
Florida pastor Terry Jones has called off his plans to burn copies of the Koran. This should not be news - the whole story shouldn't have been considered any more important than an "and finally" item on any news broadcast. A ridiculous amount of attention has been paid and publicity given to a man who presides over a congregation of no more than 50.
What's equally disappointing is that large numbers of people in the Muslim world are treating this village idiot and his tiny band of followers as the spokesman for the entire United States, if not the entire western world. Which is as daft as treating a handful of terrorists as the true representatives of all Muslims.
What's equally disappointing is that large numbers of people in the Muslim world are treating this village idiot and his tiny band of followers as the spokesman for the entire United States, if not the entire western world. Which is as daft as treating a handful of terrorists as the true representatives of all Muslims.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Religious extremism
A church in Florida has announced plans to burn copies of the Koran this evening (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11223457).
I really can't phrase my comments any better than this:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/
I really can't phrase my comments any better than this:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/
William Hague - "nailed"
William Hague is quoted in the Telegraph today as saying that he has "nailed" the lie about his sexuality.
The allegations seemed to be based on three things:
1) That photo where he looks like the keyboard player from an 80's dance act
2) Chris Myers was his third special advisor (other ministers only have two)
3) Hague and Myers shared hotel rooms while on the campaign trail together.
They shared rooms to save money on hotel bills so ironically this is a situation where a politician was in trouble for not claiming enough expenses.
The allegations seemed to be based on three things:
1) That photo where he looks like the keyboard player from an 80's dance act
2) Chris Myers was his third special advisor (other ministers only have two)
3) Hague and Myers shared hotel rooms while on the campaign trail together.
They shared rooms to save money on hotel bills so ironically this is a situation where a politician was in trouble for not claiming enough expenses.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)