Flawed logic

In the fallout from last week's General Election I find myself amazed at how some people are taken in by the flawed logic regarding the criticism of our voting system.

Whilst having no particular axe to grind, it does annoy me that those who wish to argue for some form of Proportional Representation do so by implying that it is 'self-evidently' true that the current system is unfair.

It isn't.

The latest person to jump on this bandwagon was Nigel Farage, who told us how unfair it was on his own party, Ukip, and the Greens, to have acquired so few seats in Parliament, given the number of votes they secured nationally. In particular, he compared the parties' totals with those secured by the SNP in Scotland.

Leaving aside the obvious observation that the population in Scotland is far less than in England, and that the SNP does not field candidates in England, there is, to me, a far more serious flaw in his thinking. Let me explain by coming at it from the other direction.

Supposing I was describing the present British political system to someone from the other side of the world who knew nothing about our country. If asked whether we are represented fairly, I might put it like this: In every locality/village/town each resident person over the age of 18 (regardless of status, wealth, etc.) is entitled to one vote, to vote for an individual who will represent that locality/village/town in the national Parliament. Anyone can stand for election, and the person who wins most votes duly represents that locality/village/town (we call them constituencies). Now, what could be fairer than that?

The flaw in the argument of Farage (and others like him) is applying a different category (namely, the total number of votes secured nationally) to that system. But we don't vote in one constituency called the United Kingdom!

Now, some might come back at me and say that the problem with the constituency model is that each of those elected individuals (with, at times, one or two exceptions) are allied to a particular political party, enabling a smaller proportion of those elected to wield considerable power by ganging up on all the other elected individuals. That's what we call a Government!

Don't get me wrong: I'm not totally heartless or lacking in empathy. I can appreciate the frustration of Ukip and Green Party members (and Liberals in times past) who believe the system doesn't give them a fair crack of the whip.

If they want to argue that we should do away with our historic constituency-based parliamentary set-up - with all its attendant virtues and strengths - and go for a pure percentage based national vote (a bit like a referendum), then fine. If they want to argue that the latter is better suited to modern political life, and would make for better national debate and decision-making, then fine.

But don't do so by claiming that the present system is so obviously and self-evidently unfair.

Getting round the wrong way words

One of the most powerful aspects of social media is its capacity to make us feel valued, respected and listened to by our fellow human beings.

If a witty/serious/emotive/sarcastic (delete as appropriate) post on facebook causes several of our 'friends' to click 'like' we immediately feel affirmed.

Even though we know (because we do it ourselves) that it takes little or no effort or thought to click 'like' something inside of us likes to believe that when others 'like' something we have posted it was among the most significant and memorable experiences they had that day. This, of course, is the genius behind the whole 'like' aspect of facebook.

Another life affirming element is birthdays. Because we tell facebook our birth date they thoughtfully have installed a system whereby all our 'friends' are reminded that it is our birthday... and so can send us a birthday greeting.

Isn't it wonderful to receive so many greetings? The chances are the number of people who say 'Happy birthday' via social media vastly outweighs the number of birthday cards that would ever drop through our letterbox. It takes far less effort, of course, to send a facebook greeting. The only snag is you have to be logged in on the right day.

Which brings me to the topic that prompted this (fairly mild) Fifty and Fed Up rant. Often, if someone has not been on facebook on the day in question they will send a belated message.

It amazes me how often on facebook I see people posting the phrase "Happy belated birthday". Er, No. The birthday wasn't late. It arrived as punctually as ever. On the same date, funnily enough, as it did last year. What was late was the greeting. I think what our 'friends' are trying to say in their haste is: "Belated Happy Birthday."

The morning after...

Please don't tell me "we were beaten by a world-class striker"...

Yes, Luis Suarez is a world-class striker and, yes, when utterly inept, schoolboy defending handed him two wonderful chances on a platter, he took them the way you would expect a world-class striker to do.

But that hardly tells the whole story ... or even part of it.

England went into this World Cup with low expectations and we have certainly fulfilled them. Watching England play is, on the whole, a depressing - not to mention frustrating - experience. Frankly we look light years behind top teams in terms of quality and basic footballing ability.

There was a time when we at least had a good defence, and were known for it. We didn't perhaps score as freely as some of the 'flair' nations (and that was sometimes our undoing) but we were hard to beat. Now, let's be honest, every time our opponents are coming forward with the ball we sit on the edge of our seats in fear and trepidation. Our defenders no longer tackle effectively (without clumsily fouling), they no longer head the ball with conviction, and their sense of positional play is almost non-existent.

This lack of basic footballing ability (among defenders) is also our undoing when going forward (although you seldom hear the 'pundits' talk about this). The way international football is played nowadays you need defenders who are comfortable on the ball and creative with it. You could have the best midfield in the world (which we don't by a long stretch) but if you don't have defenders who play their part in attack, moving the ball at pace and helping create space and openings, you will always struggle - as England do.

There's not a lot of point criticising Roy Hodgson (even if you think he has made mistakes and opted for the wrong line-ups as, personally, I do) because the problem is far, far bigger than one man's capacity to solve. And yet when the inquests and the moaning follow on the back of an early exit what will happen? Next to nothing.

There is something very, very wrong with the English game. We have - we are told - a very good 'product' in the Premier League. Huge, almost incomprehensible amounts of money are swilling about in the domestic game and yet clearly not to the benefit of domestic footballing talent.

In India the Indian Premier League is a highly marketable, successful form of Twenty20 cricket. The league has rules that not only limit the number of foreigners teams can have in the their squads and on the field of play, but also requires teams to have a certain number of emerging, young Indian players in their squads. Of course the overseas players thrill the crowds, but Indian players get plenty of opportunity to develop their game. In other words, here is one financial gravy train that is actually set up to try and improve domestic one-day cricket in India. And it seems to be working.

Now someone will say "but football is just not cricket". What's more, EU regulations on free working practices would not allow such restrictions to be placed on English football teams (if that's true, there's at least one good good reason to be out of the EU, perhaps...!).

At the end of the day, however, there just doesn't seem to be the will at club level, or the clout at national, administrative level to really do something about it. Perhaps too much of the money in the English game comes from abroad. Arguably the last time purely English money transformed a club was when Jack Walker's fortune turned Blackburn Rovers into a champion-challenging outfit in the mid-1990s. Look at the proportion of British players in the starting line-ups of the leading teams back then. An internet search into how such clubs as Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, AC Milan, Barcelona and Real Madrid are set up and run today provides interesting, sobering reading.

I could go on but, to be honest, I don't know what the answer is. Nothing guarantees ultimate success, of course. Only one nation can win the World Cup, which happens only every four years - and there are a number of great footballing nations out there. But we want to see England at least competing; at least at the 'top table' of nations who have a chance. Greg Dyke has been ridiculed for coming in and advocating major changes. I have no axe to grind for or against him - but he, or anyone else for that matter, has a huge task if things are ever going to be turned around.

Personally I can't see it at the moment. The richer English clubs will continue to buy short term success and will continue to line the wallets of overseas players, who now constitute the vast majority of starting line-ups in those successful teams. In the meantime, we will go on wishing - fruitlessly - that we had a national team that could stand alongside the stronger footballing nations of the world.

More of the same...

The appalling commercial abuse of the 'beautiful game' reared its ugly head once again this week, with the unveiling of England's new kits for this summer's World Cup in Brazil.

The new World Cup first kit

Two things incensed me enough to reach for the laptop and blog again. First the price. Apparently the new shirt is going to retail at £90. Yes, £90. That is nothing short of disgraceful. One footballer, QPR's Joey Barton, commented on his twitter page: "£90 for the new England shirt is taking the mickey out of the fans. When will it stop? Appalling. Football again allows commercialism to eat away at its soul. Something has got to give."

Quite right. Shadow Sports Minister Clive Efford was also quoted as attacking not only the price but the frequency with which kits are changed nowadays, which is the second thing I find unacceptable.

The new World Cup second kit

The latest (until now) England kit was unveiled only last May. That means it has lasted less than a year. That's just seven England football games. When it was launched (Nike had taken over the contract from Umbro) I naively assumed what they had come up with would at least see us through to the World Cup.

The kits that lasted less than a year

As I sat bemusing the shoddy state of football nowadays I was reminded of some comments made by Bob Wilson, the former Arsenal goalkeeper, who hosted the Saturday lunchtime Football Focus programme on BBC1 for twenty-odd years. Bob, who I think trained as a schoolteacher before taking up football, was always an articulate man who made sensible comments worth listening to.

I remember one occasion him bemoaning the fact that many teams now (this was probably in the 80s or, at a push, early 90s) changed their kits every three years or so. It would, he pointed out, put a burden on parents, whose footballing-loving offspring naturally wanted their favourite team's latest kit.

Every three years or so. Look at what happens now. It is, indeed, an indication of the awful creeping commercialism that, as Barton put it, is eating away at the soul of the game. What would Bob make of the scandalous state of kit changes today?

Nobody is listening...

Ever had a feeling of 'deja-vu'? You might, if you've been reading this blog.

Last weekend, FA Cup fifth round tie: Everton v Swansea, at Everton's Goodison Park.

Right. Everton, as every football fan knows, play in royal blue. Swansea, as most football fans will know, play in white. Fine. So, why do Swansea run out in their 'away' kit, which, for this year at least, comprises dark blue (almost purple) shirts with garish sections of yellow on them, and yellow shorts?

Yes, we've visited this rant before, when Spurs played Inter-Milan in a European tie. It can only be for commercial reasons. There aren't that many sides who play in white (which would necessitate a change of strip by the away team) so it must be that Swansea have to take every opportunity to play in their away kit, to please their sponsors - and particularly if the game is being shown live on ITV, of course.

Trouble is, those dark blue shirts (even with the hideous yellow section across the shoulder), surely constituted more of a 'colour clash' with Everton's royal blue than their standard all-white kit would have done.

If I was the referee for that game I would have gone into the dressing room and said: "Sorry, in my eyes this is too much of a clash - put your proper first kit on".

Frustration, frustration...

There are many things in modern life that serve to frustrate, annoy, and even exasperate.

One that regularly features in people's complaints is 'Call Centres'. In fact, to be more specific, the frustrating electronic bureaucracy one has to battle through whenever trying to sort something out on the phone.

As you might imagine (given that I am writing about it!) I have an example ready to hand.

Today I rang the company (for politeness they shall remain nameless) with which my daughter has a mobile phone contract. Now that she is earning she wants to take over the account.

I duly retrieved the paperwork from my filing cabinet. I then phoned. After what seemed an eternity of navigating through endless "if you want this, dial this" type options (Oh, for the days of a switchboard reply with a human being immediately at the other end!) I finally got to speak to a member of staff.

I confirmed the phone number. I gave my address. He asked for my previous address. Now, the paperwork WHICH I HAD IN FRONT OF ME clearly stated my present address. As a matter of random interest, it actually listed my two previous addresses (I moved twice in a couple of years). This means SOMEONE HAD, AT SOME POINT, TAKEN DOWN MY DETAILS CORRECTLY.

Yet, the unhelpful individual on the other end insisted that the address he had on the system didn't match. I pointed out the information on my paperwork was correct and that, therefore, the problem/fault was his ... or, rather, not his personally, but that of someone 'at his end'.

Banging my head against a brick wall would have seemed rewarding and worthwhile compared with the usefulness of this frustrating, time-consuming conversation. I am not blaming him personally, and I'm sure someone will point out that people like him have to endure the ire of grumpy people like me on the other end. He doesn't deserve that, but that's not the point.

In this case the problem was theirs, not mine - and yet, I now have to sort it out by going down to a local telephone centre and presenting two items of personal identification. I still don't know how easy it will then be to have the account transferred to my daughter. I am dreading more frustration.

We've lost an awful lot in this technological age.

There's nothing on!

"Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without the double-edition Radio Times!" How often have I said that in the past, or had others say it to me?

It has certainly been part of my Christmas traditions, for as long as I can remember, to buy the special Christmas edition as soon as it hits the news-stands. (For those of us who can remember further back, there was a time when you had to buy the Radio Times and the TV Times, as the former only published BBC TV and radio programmes; the latter covered ITV)

So it was, in the usual spirit of Christmas tradition, that I bought this year's edition.

But, I have to say, it was probably the worst investment of £3.20 I made this past festive season.

To borrow from Terry Wogan: "Is it me?" It just seems that Christmas TV isn't what it used to be. Perhaps the growth in quantity (of channels, that is) is directly proportional to the decline in quality. Perhaps the DVD/catch-up-TV-on-the-internet age has just dulled the excitement of a special film or Christmas TV special.

In the past part of the fun of buying the double-edition was glancing through and spotting well in advance the programmes or films you wanted to watch (or to record on VHS if you knew you wouldn't be in to see it). I recall my mum used to circle those things she most wanted to see.

Now each day takes up three double pages: terrestrial TV, then the freeview channels, and then the satellite channels. Even though I have no need for the third section (not having satellite) wading through everything else now becomes a major exercise. In some cases there is precious little detail because of the lack of space.

I'm not a Luddite: I watch DVDs, I watch stuff on the freeview channels (especially the excellent ITV3) and I occasionally watch stuff on the internet.

All the same, I can't help feeling we have lost something of the sparkle of TV at Christmas.