6pm kick offs - just not fair, surely?

Hey, 

Rangers played their rearranged match with St. Johnstone in Perth on Tuesday. Playing a midweek match, on its own, is nothing new. However, what makes this particularly newsworthy is that the match kicked-off at 6pm, in order to allow it to be screened on television and not to clash with the night’s Champions League fixtures in Madrid and Milan.

The decision to push the kick-off back by roughly two hours represents, yet again, the wishes of fans being ignored. Perth is 60 miles away from Glasgow and, combined with rush-hour traffic, the 6pm kick-off was tough for away fans – and indeed many of the St. Johnstone fans also – to make. If decisions were made in the interest of fans, such kick-off times would be unheard of, however we all know that this is not the case. The money received from television money is in many aspects the life-support of many clubs, and the scars of the collapse of Setanta Sports have yet to heal. The SPL are keen to not bite the hand that feeds, and if that means working yesterday’s match around Inter Milan versus and Shalke – a match where a clash in of interests does not seem likely – to keep Sky and ESPN happy, then it is something that has to be done.

Of course these arguments about the interests of fans being ignored are very much regurgitated ones. It was only a matter of months ago in which Henry McLeish’s report on the state of Scottish football was published. The report, which was highly critical, proposed an expansion of the Scottish Premier League from its current twelve to fourteen or sixteen. This idea was popular amongst fans; it eliminated the prospect of boredom that a small league can create, such as travelling to away grounds two or three times a season. Bizarre scenarios which have occurred this season in which Celtic will meet Rangers seven times would be all but removed if they were meeting each other less in the league. Needless to say, these proposals were popular with Strathclyde Police also; fewer matches would lead to, theoretically, less violence, or at least less opportunities for violence.

When the SPL teams met to discuss such proposals however a different conclusion was reached. Most of the clubs declared a preference for the opposite of what the fans wanted, and that they wanted a smaller, ten-team top tier rather than an enlargement. Doing this would allow four guaranteed fixtures of the “big” games in the SPL, such as the Old Firm, Edinburgh derbies and such like. As a commercial product for television rights, four Old Firm derbies are easier to sell than two, especially with the bad-blood following last month’s match. Although this is not what fans want, those in favour believe a smaller league is more sustainable, since attendances in Scotland aren’t great. But surely if the league reflected the wants of the fans, a rise in attendances (and subsequently gate receipts) would follow?

Although no decisions have been made at the top table on such proposals yet, it highlights the cruel reality of football not just in Scotland but elsewhere; money talks. This is not new, but hopefully Tuesday’s 6pm start is just a one-off due to a cramped fixture schedule following the harsh winter postponing fixtures. But one worries that it can become common practice, the way it has been done in the Europa League. 

DC 

x

New Year, New Problems

Hey,

So, the first blog of 2011. Exciting eh? Well, no, not really. I'm writing during the break I have between my two rescheduled exams. This is rubbish for many reasons:

a) they were meant to take place last month
b) I couldn't celebrate my birthday since I was revising for exams. Exams, as it later turned out, were a month away
c) I have two on the same day
d) they are on a Saturday

A mixture of factors, I'm sure you'll agree it is not ideal. But there you go. Anyway, I hope you had a good new year (seems like ages ago now). I'll try and keep the blog going again this year, even if it is just for my own enjoyment. It's nice to look back on too.

Arizona Shooting Thingy
A tragedy? Yes. Preventable? Probably. Sarah Palin's fault? Well...

It isn't really Sarah Palin's fault. She didn't put the bullets in the gun, nor did she tell him to. But her rhetoric throughout the November mid-terms was aggressive and, involved, err, guns. Lots of guns. Shoot 'em down! Don't retreat, reload! Rar! Etc. Of course this sort of military rhetoric is common in the US. British slogans and campaigns can be aggressive, often harsh attacks of character and policy, but not to the extent of across the Atlantic, and not to the same degree as the Tea Party (thank the Lord). We do use war as a metaphor, but only really in sport, or when England play Germany/Argentina at football. It's use in sport is usually to try and paint sportsmen as victorious warriors, bleeding and bruised but defiant. Nothing epitomises this more than the image of Terry Butcher. It sounds like an oxymoron, but we use war imagery in an almost naive way.

My argument about the shootings in Arizona is this; the man who shot the bullets was 22 years old, meaning that he would've been a teenager whilst the scandals of Columbine and teenage suicides were all the rage. He is of a generation that, accused by the right, of being brainwashed and changed by the rhetoric of artists like Marilyn Manson and the like. A decade on, has this generation changed? The words of Palin can be taken on board by vulnerable, sensitive Americans and it could've possibly led him to the actions that he did. Both had an influence on impressionable people, albeit one would argue that Manson's intelligence is superior to that of the potential Republican Presidential candidate for 2012. As I said, this is not Palin or the Tea Party's fault, but maybe she should be more careful with she says next time. The only difference between Palin and Manson is make-up, after all.

The VAT Rise
We are all in this together, but some are in it more than others...

Last week's news I know, but it's impact will last longer the delicious chicken stir fry I had on the same day. It was wonderful. Anyway.

Increasing VAT to 20%, in my opinion, is wrong. Gideon is justifying his actions by saying that the alternative Labour proposed, an increase in contributions through National Insurance, is a "tax on jobs". My argument is, is that such a bad thing?

Say this is a "tax on jobs" as the right proclaim, it is also a tax on people who have jobs, so surely it makes sense for people in employment to pay their way as opposed to people who are not in employment to do so. Of course there are people who abuse the system, but let's be Hobbessian about this - we pay our way so the system works.  I rather live in a society in which those who can afford to pay, do so. The VAT increase may be "fair" in the sense that everyone is effected, but at the same time it is not "fair" since everyone is affected differently. An increase on VAT hits the pocket of the poor harder than the pockets of the rich, as it simply means a higher percent of income, and this will affect the ability to spend. How can we be encouraged to spend and help revive our economy if we have less money? Obviously this would be the same if it were taken from N.I contributions, but the hit would be of a similar level to everyone. As it is, the VAT increase will hurt the poor. Combined with the news that the Conservatives are cutting staff budget by 17% (3000 jobs to you and me) in the next year in Manchester (and similar places in the north such as Middlesbrough and Sunderland) when some of the more genteel, conservative (big C or little c depending on your view) areas are experiencing lighter sanctions when we are all "in this together" just doesn't fair. But fairness is in the eye of the beholder, or the beholder of the Treasury. Whichever you prefer.

 DC
x

Where did that year go?

Hey,

I’m pretty sure that this will be the last blog of the year due to work and all that. It’s a year that started and ended in The Crofter, albeit on different sides of the bar. 2010 has been good in my opinion. These are the highlights…

* The year I did pub golf for the first time

* The year I stopped mongering fish

* The year I started being a bar man

* The year I ended up in Belfast for the 12th July

* The year I went to Italy

* The year I went to a Kilmarnock match

* The year I caught (nearly) every World Cup match

* The year I met Pete Wentz

* The year I got this shiny new netbook I’m writing this on!

* The year I started blogging an awful lot more

* The year my teenage years ended

* The year I started living in a proper flat

* The year I voted for the first time in a general election

That’s about it, I think? If anyone knows anything else I did (within reason) then let me know. If not, that’s it I guess!

 

See you in 2011,

DC

x

Alternative Sports Personality of the Year 2010

Hey,

So, a jockey won Sports Personality of the Year then. Much has been said about this, as many have questioned if he was really the deserving winner. Even more has been said about the justification of Phil Taylor coming second for dominating a game which is best suited for the pub.

I'm going to avoid these arguments, for I do not see the point of Sports Personality of the Year anyway. For you see, the awards aren't for Sports Personality as such, merely it is a trophy for the person who has won the most trophies. You can be a dour sod, the physical conception of the colour beige, and still be Sports Personality of the Year. It has nothing to do with personality at all, or how an athlete entertained the public, making them laugh, cry or moan - examples of a personality, you could argue.

We don't look back at past winners with fondness, but with a shrug. Zara Phillips? Meh. Ryan Giggs? Aye he's good at football, but have you seen him with an autocue? It's awkward. I have nothing against Giggs or Phillips, they are great atheletes. But are they great personalities?

With this in mind I propose my own Sports Personality of the Year Awards...

Young Sports Personality of the Year: Mohammed Amir

Amir is only 18, but he is a bloody good cricketer. So good infact that he is Pakistan's main seam bowler and in the summer he was dismantling the English top-order with so much ease comparisons to Wasim Akram were flying about.

Unfortunately for Amir, he had many talents. Like Ricky Wong in "We Can Be Heroes" who was both a world-class actor and a Ph.D student of physics, Amir also enjoys acting. So much so that in a match against England he performed a no-ball. On purpose. For Money. It was showmanship that many theatre veterens (and book makers) loved. The boy has potential, but like Wong, he will have to choose soon between acting and cricket - otherwise things, as we have seen with this little stunt, will get really complicated.

Team of the Year: Stjarnan FC

Who, I hear you ask? Well, as soon as you read a bit more you impatient little fiend it will all make sense.

Stjarnan FC are an Icelandic football team who became an overnight sensation with their goal celebrations. To put simply, they are superb (I recommend the fish and the toilet celebrations). In a year in which Coca-Cola tried to attach themselves to the concept of celebrations in cringe-worthy adverts which show Roger Milla parading about with a bottle of Coke and no teeth (coincidence?) the have been refreshing and a source of inspiration for many celebration ideas. Trust me, the fish celebration is very difficult to do.

Overseas Personality of the Year: Mother Russia!

They haven't really done anything great,nor do they really deserve it. But they paid me an awful lot of money to get this, and they threatened to break my legs, too. Putin knows judo. So hail to Russia, the worthy winners!

Sports Personality of the Year: Paul Gascoigne

Any footballer who can get himself inadvertently involved in the biggest man-hunt this country has seen in recent times aimed with chicken, lager and fishing rods is the only real candidate for Sports Personality of the Year. Incidentally, he won it in 1990, and we all love an anniversary don't we?

Fuck off snow.

I love living in Glasgow, but I am aware that some of the time it is not an ideal city to live in. When you add weather which is not uncommon to Minsk into the equation, however, it gets a lot more complicated.

Scotland, since the beginning of November, has been snowed in. As I have already said I live in Glasgow, but I am originally from Fort William (the home of Ben Nevis and not much else) which is a further 100 miles north. At the peak of last winter (which was bloody cold as well) it peaked at -17C. Which isn’t ideal, I’m sure you will agree.

It has not been as bad as that (yet), but after the “blizzard” which struck the city on Monday, Glasgow just collapsed. Not literally of course, don’t worry Primark is still here, but the transport infrastructure crumbled. Buses stopped. Trains stopped. Motorways were at a standstill. Even the Glasgow underground was suspended. This still confuses me; I mean, the subway stations are under the ground, surely? Glasgow to Edinburgh is a journey which usually takes forty-five minutes. Yesterday it took thirteen hours.

Broadsheets mostly ignored the weather, disregarding Scottish conditions being “pure Baltic” as news. Instead, The Times appeared to be more interested in someone on the radio saying the word “cunt” on air (it’s ok to say it, by the way. The more we use it the less offensive and more mainstream it will become. Come on, practice saying it now. Cunt! Cunt! Cunt!). There’s also a cricket match taking place on the other side of the world to be paying attention on – a match so far away that they can only cover events from two days previously because of the time difference.

The red-tops, however, had a field-day with the weather; the Daily Record headlined with “Road to Snowhere” (see what they did there?). The Sun, on the other hand, were far more dramatic with “Snow Apocalypse!”. That’s right. An apocalypse.

There is reason to complain: after all, we should be use to weather like this – we are Scottish, remember – and surely the maintenance of public transport is what I spend council tax on?

Ok, I am a student, making the last bit a lie. But if I did pay council tax (which I don’t) I would be furious (which I am not) because I would not have been able to get home (which I did). Infact, the only impact the adverse weather has had on me (apart from making me house-bound on my 20th birthday on Monday) has been the postponing of my exams, two of which were due to be today. Hence the reason I am writing this instead of an essay about 19th Irish immigration to Britain.

One last thing about Glasgow being twinned with Juneau in terms of climate; like any other “crisis” like when the World Cup was stolen in 1966, usually a folk hero is created. In 1966 it was a dog called Pickles who found the trophy; the equivalent here is a man called David Newall. Newall is the Secretary of Court at Glasgow University who is responsible for the postponing of exams for a further month. Due to this he now has an appreciation society on Facebook which has (at the time of writing) 235 fans. As one of those fans, I can only say God bless you David Newall, you beautiful man.

And the World Cup goes to... The Highest Bidder!

Hey, 


So, England's bid wasn't good enough for the 2018 World Cup. Or was it? No, no it wasn't. They lost.


We can look at the factors for the reasons why this was the case; the Panorama program "exposing" the "shocking" nature of how Fifa is run (this is not old news; Andrew Jennings' book on Fifa's corruption deals with the same issues as the BBC program did on Monday evening and was first published in 2006); the choice of people to speak in Zurich for the presentation - selecting David Beckham to speak (like, in sentences and that) is like asking a racehorse to prepare a three-course meal; 


There are a few things which I don't get; firstly, everyone seems surprised that the two countries with the most money/oil/contacts won (the great footballing nation of Qatar got the 2022 World Cup). Red-tops (and worryingly, some broadsheets) shouted 'fix' because England didn't win. Although England's bid was technically sound, it lacked the prime objective which Fifa tournaments - and especially Sepp Blatter - crave; a legacy. 


It's always been a "thing" of Sepp Blatter's, this legacy idea. For Blatter, a World Cup should be more than a summer football tournament. The French World Cup of 1998 unified a country dealing with racial tension thanks to Zinedine Zidane's efforts for the hosts. In 2002, South Korea and Japan hosted the first World Cup to happen in Asia. This summer was the African equivalent in South Africa, and 2018 will be the first World Cup for a post-Soviet nation. Qatar will be the first Islamic state to stage the tournament. To put briefly, Blatter wants a lasting legacy for the countries involved, but this cannot apply to a first world country like England. Perhaps more significantly, Blatter wants a legacy for himself too. 

That's not to say money is  not important, because it bloody is. Fifa spin as much money out of these tournaments as they can; merchandise, sponsorship, television rights and ticket sales, for instance. They expect all this whilst contributing nothing towards the infrastructures needed for hosting a competition as big as the World Cup; transport links, accommodation and security are all expected to be covered for by the national Government. Fifa love football. But they love profit too. And so do the members of their board, it seems. Bribery and what not, dare I say, are not unusual in the corridors of power in Zurich. It may be just a coincidence Russia was branded a "mafia state" by the WikiLeaks scandal they same day their bid won. Of course, it may not be, because everyone loves a conspiracy.


England's bid wasn't exactly squeaky-clean either. In fact, the campaign team's treatment of the influential Jack Warner is no different to the way Vladimir Putin has been accused of treating Silvio Berlusconi in the recent WikiLeaks scandal. The FA, apparently, lavished him and his wife with gifts to help "persuade" him to vote for the English bid. Remember England playing that rather pointless friendly against Trinidad and Tobago in 2008? Probably not, it's not memorable and if memory serves me right it was unofficial to everyone except Dean Ashton, who still believes he has an England cap. Either way, the English bid wasn't as perfect as everyone says it is, it's just that it used its influence in the wrong way. What you need is a Prime Minister who knows judo. And Gazprom. That helps too.


DC 
x

November Spawned A Gap Between Blogs

Hi,

Sorry it's been a while since the last blog. I wish I had an interesting and exciting reason why for this absence; some sort of coma induced by doing something amazing, like really amazing.

Instead, it has been because of course work. It's been a bit of a bastard, consuming all of November and, so far, most of December as well.  I know this is to be expected - it's the reason why I'm in Glasgow in the first place, but the deadlines and exam dates all just appeared like a stag on the A82. You know, the bit between Tyndrum and Crianlarich? Don't pretend you don't know.

The horrors that this time of year bring regarding essays and exams aren't over yet, far from it. I have two exams this Wednesday, and one next Monday. Then it ends for another calendar year (and what a fast year 2010 has been) and we have Christmas, which brings with it seasonal obesity, complaints about the weather and a longing for a return to Glasgow. Dare I say it, even going to O'Couture. I take that back. Of course I do.

No, there are two reasons why I am returning to this blog. Firstly, this is a great form of procrastination, up there with Robot Unicorn, watching Ashes highlights on YouTube and sleeping. The second reason is because it is my birthday tomorrow. It would be unfair on the blog of which I take some pride and fondness in for its last entry from a teenage body was a pishy play list of a recurring emo phase that I was experiencing.  It deserves more than that, I figured.

So, what does turning twenty actually mean? Currently, I'm not sure. So far the only things that spring to mind are purely literally, and mainly certain songs that I can no longer relate to (or at least pretend to be able to refer to). The list so far stretches to:
- Teenage Dreams - Katy Perry (not that I ever would relate to this song...)
- Smells Like Teen Spirit - Nirvana
- Teenagers - My Chemical Romance
- Lying is the Most Fun a Girl Can Have Without Taking Her Clothes Off - Panic! at the Disco (an odd choice for the unassuming, but it has the lyric "Let's get these teen hearts beating faster and faster)

Is there anything more to it? I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the transition from nineteen to twenty  is pretty much just any other birthday, and that there's no emotional baggage required. That's not to say you can't have emotional baggage - to cry and go all soppy and reflective on seven years which changed you from a high-pitched geek who knows too much about the Bundesliga, to someone who is...well, essentially the same is optional. And I don't think it's an option I'm taking. The only thing of significance is that it's my first birthday away from Fort William.

DC x

A Playlist.

Hey,

I haven't made a list of songs that I like in a long time. Nice to do one every now and then though, innit?

The thing is, in recent weeks I've kind of reverted back to the Emo way of life. This is partly down to two things;

a) I never really stopped being an Emo, did I?

b) We Are The Ocean.

We Are The Ocean - God Damn Good.

I really like this band these days. Like the way the smell of toast makes one crave a slice, this band completely rekindled my love for Alexisonfire. The contrast between the screaming (I know, I don't like screaming either. But it's there, and trust me it gets bearable) and the singing is striking. Because the screamo element of bands like WATO isn't great, it almost amplifies the quality of the vocals. This song is an example of this.

Alexisonfire - No Transitory

It is with this in mind that Alexisonfire is next. This song especially. But if you don't like the screaming elements of these songs, thank goodness for Dallas Green's sideproject "City and Colour".

City and Colour - The Death of Me

And on a similar note, Luke Pickett...

Luke Pickett - See You At The Disco

And yet, there is still a side of me that tries to be cool. And it expresses itself by liking the XX.
I geniunely do like the XX, and I'm sure many of you have heard their self-titled album due to the praise it recieved since the Mercury prize. Rather, this is a link to a cover of some 80s pop song. It's cool.

XX - Teardrops

Unfortunatly, this urge to try and be cool is immediately squashed by what I dread - enjoying the same taste in music as my parents.

This isn't neccessarily a bad thing, but what has meant is that I am now a fan of Tom McRae. I resent this, since I have always mocked my parents about how he isn't famous. Yet on Saturday I saw him live (free ticket, free dinner). And it was actually really good. So here's the highlight of the night - his song "I Still Love You".

I'll try and and get more music on here, going to see Pete Wentz's new band on Monday. Will let you know how it goes.

DC x

I only think in the form of crunching numbers, or at least I wish I did.

Hey,

So yesterday was the big spending review. And spending reviews aren't nice. What yesterday was George Osbourne looking at the state of finances in our country, much the way a parent would with their sons' bank balance. Imagine Gideon (that's George's real name, honest) looking at what we spent money on, with disdain and the like? All this reckless spending from the last administration has made his head spin. The word "quango" fills him with an uncontrollable urge to slap Danny Alexander. Poor lad.

Now, ideally I would be writing to discuss what was slashed yesterday. But I can't, for you see I don't really know what happened. Yesterday's report was a blizzard of numbers, the noise of the crunching hurt my ears. The sheer quantity of statistics meant that anything that was controversial was burried under all those quangos.

Due to devolution, and being Scottish, much of what was spoken yesterday didn't really affect me and if it does it's still to early to gauge. For instance, University spending is being by 40%, but that only indirectly applies to me since the university system is different up here. All these big questions, like tuition fees and graduate tax are still unanswered. I wish they were answer pretty soon, those megaphones are still in large force on university campus, and between that and the number crunching I am getting a massive migrane.

Media coverage has been awkward because it is difficult to simplify yesterday's review. The BBC basically shrugged and said "err, well, if you have a child, then, err, it's probably not so good". But I don't have a child (I think). So it's confusing.

The only thing I digested was a little contradiction inregards to culture. The blood of the British Film Council is still on Gideon's knife, a geniune loss from the cuts, yet museums and the like remain much of their priveleges, e.g. free entry. Now I'm not suggesting the Coalition aren't fans of Banksy - it's hard not to like Banksy - but if they are so concerned about the deficit why close a successful element? Money is saved but the country is poorer now; if it wasn't for the BFC there would be no "In the Loop", no "Bend It Like Beckham", no "Love Actually" and the financial spin-offs of these. In 2009 British films made $29.9 billion in worldwide box offices - that's quite a lot of money, ain't it? But, if you want to keep some paintings around for free then go ahead. It all seems odd to me.

Fuck Off Tory Scum. Apparently.

Hey, 


So, whilst re-familiarising myself with the University's surroundings following the summer's reprise (and more recently the activities of Fresher's Week) amidst the Fraser Building, the GUU and QMU were rather unflattering posters and graffiti of the current government and their proposed heavy spending cuts. Excuse my language for a moment, but the general theme of this PR was that of "Fuck Off Tory Scum".

Now, before I continue, can I stress that I oppose said cuts. In my opinion these cuts are extremely premature due to the fragile economy and the threat of a double-dip recession and other equally frightening jargon. But by venting anger in this way, involving spray paint, swear words and megaphones is wrong and a bit thoughtless. In pragmatic terms the bill to clean up the graffiti will have to be met by the educational institutions they are trying to protect. It's like trying to raise awareness STDs by writing "I Have Chlamydia" on someone. Yes, your point has been made, but you're not the one who has to go round with that on your shirt, are you? The use of the loud megaphones push more people away from their views than pull them in, and it kind of portrays an image not of "freedom of speech" but of "my voice is louder than yours".

In an article in The Guardian Charlie Brooker wrote of how the Left is generally not as good as the Right at creativity, and with this point he is right; whilst the Left has had to deal with such phrases as "Deficit Deniers" or supporting an apparent "Job's Tax" (the proposed National Insurance contribution increase) we on the Left's line hasn't really strayed too far away from "Nazis!" or "Fascists!". Or in this case, "Scum!".

A change in approach feels needed. Although Charles Saatchi (the man behind the famous "Labour Isn't Working" election poster) recently said in The Times that only negative campaigning is truly successful, that doesn't make it right. Ethically, how can you claim moral high ground when you are attacking a faction of society the way these posters do, in this case those of upper-class and prestigious educational backgrounds . Yes, the Government's proposals may be wrong, but by bringing it down to a class war is simply not the way forward. If roles were reversed, how would we like it if "Fuck Off Poor Twats" (or something similar) was brandished around in an equally carefree manner? I suspect it would not go down too well.

Believe it or not but people outside our higher-education bubble voted Conservative. As a consequence, we have a Government that many of us didn't want. The only way we can ensure that this doesn't happen again is that we campaign in the right ways until 2015, but that shouldn't involve megaphones and swear words.   

Websites; promotion of your party or the insulting of another?

Hey, 
Reading yesterday's The Guardian I stumbled across Charlie Brooker's article about how the Right-wing are brilliant at creating snappy-yet-misleading nicknames for political disputes. He named examples, such as the "boom and bust" economy, the National Insurance increase being a "tax on jobs" and, most recently in the US, the "ground zero mosque" to support his claims. The Left, in his view, were pretty unimaginative, resorting to the age-old insults of "Bastards! Fascists! Racists!" which don't support their argument because a) they are wrong and b) they aren't, well, catchy enough. 
His article made me think - which on its own is always worrying - about whether he is right to propose this hypothesis; are the Right-wing better at sprouting their propaganda? To investigate, I used the easiest readily available sources - the official party websites of the Conservatives and Labour. To give the research some depth I also looked at the Democrats and the Republicans in the state of New York, where the Democrats are in power as opposed to the Conservatives here.


The United Kingdom - The Labour Party and The Conservatives
(http://www2.labour.org.uk/home)
(http://www.conservatives.com/Default.aspx)
The Conservative website tells you more about the bad things New Labour did during their thirteen years in Government than the actual positives of the ConDem coalition. This, in my opinion, is not healthy. Four out of the five headlines on the Conservative homepage are about Labour's failings, ranging from economic policy to pension warnings and Labour's "legacy". The only headline that is not Labour related is that about aid for Pakistani flood victims. 
The Labour Party website is a bit side-tracked by the leadership campaigns being conducted by the Milibands et al. There is disgruntled mumblings at the Government - they are in opposition, after all -  but they are more centred at the Liberal Democrats, the unexpected enemy following the General Election in May. The Conservatives have always been the rivals, but Nick Clegg was the centre-left flirt that left feelings hurt. And it hasn't been forgiven.
What is interesting to see is that both Parties are aware of the importance and power of social networking. Both sites have links to Facebook pages of their party (if you are interested, more people "like" the Tories than Labour). Both sites also offer a "find your nearest representative" application. It showed I live in Conservative desert-land, with more hope of my skin turning Smurf-like blue than of meeting a Tory in the West of Scotland with any influence at all. 


New York State - The Republicans and The Democrats. 
(http://www.nygop.org/home)
(http://www.nydems.org/)
The New York case study is useful to look at since in the USA the conservative Republicans are not in power and the Democrats are.With this change in role between the two countries, have the patterns that we have seen in the UK - that of the Right publicly attacking the Left - different?
In a nutshell, no. 
The Democrats website is far from perfect, before we look into it. There is a cheap dig at the Republican lobbyist Rick Lazio by the side of the site, which is a bit tacky by the standards of a serious political organisation. Compared to the Republicans however this is tame. Whilst the main story on the Democrats page is "Andrew Cuomo, The New New York Agenda: A Plan For Action", a plan for reform, the Republicans use their equivalent space to focus on the "Hall of Shame" of the Democrats leadership of New York, with satirical, "comical" images to boot. And it all seems a bit cheap.


Conclusions
I have only made these judgements by browsing the websites of these parties and not much else e.g. election campaign material. Both sides of the political spectrum tend to be at their ugliest during these elections and just as bad as each other (just search for election posters from previous elections on Google to find out). It isn't a new practice by any means, but the internet (and social networking) has just proved to be a new outlet for this propaganda. However, I would have to agree with Brooker. When it comes to these "dirty tactics" the Right appear to be more street-wise than the Left. They have their reasons, of course; the Conservatives have big cuts to make and want to place as much blame as possible on the previous administration, whilst the Republicans have mid-term elections this November. But overall, although the Left can often appear to be the more passionate, the Right have the sharper tongues. 


DC
x

Hey, 


Reading yesterday's The Guardian I stumbled across Charlie Brooker's article about how the Right-wing are brilliant at creating snappy-yet-misleading nicknames for political disputes. He named examples, such as the "boom and bust" economy, the National Insurance increase being a "tax on jobs" and, most recently in the US, the "ground zero mosque" to support his claims. The Left, in his view, were pretty unimaginative, resorting to the age-old insults of "Bastards! Fascists! Racists!" which don't support their argument because a) they are wrong and b) they aren't, well, catchy enough. 


His article made me think - which on its own is always worrying - about whether he is right to propose this hypothesis; are the Right-wing better at sprouting their propaganda? To investigate, I used the easiest readily available sources - the official party websites of the Conservatives and Labour. To give the research some depth I also looked at the Democrats and the Republicans in the state of New York, where the Democrats are in power as opposed to the Conservatives here.


The United Kingdom - The Labour Party and The Conservatives


(http://www2.labour.org.uk/home)
(http://www.conservatives.com/Default.aspx)


The Conservative website tells you more about the bad things New Labour did during their thirteen years in Government than the actual positives of the ConDem coalition. This, in my opinion, is not healthy. Four out of the five headlines on the Conservative homepage are about Labour's failings, ranging from economic policy to pension warnings and Labour's "legacy". The only headline that is not Labour related is that about aid for Pakistani flood victims. 


The Labour Party website is a bit side-tracked by the leadership campaigns being conducted by the Milibands et al. There is disgruntled mumblings at the Government - they are in opposition, after all -  but they are more centred at the Liberal Democrats, the unexpected enemy following the General Election in May. The Conservatives have always been the rivals, but Nick Clegg was the centre-left flirt that left feelings hurt. And it hasn't been forgiven.


What is interesting to see is that both Parties are aware of the importance and power of social networking. Both sites have links to Facebook pages of their party (if you are interested, more people "like" the Tories than Labour). Both sites also offer a "find your nearest representative" application. It showed I live in Conservative desert-land, with more hope of my skin turning Smurf-like blue than of meeting a Tory in the West of Scotland with any influence at all. 


New York State - The Republicans and The Democrats. 


(http://www.nygop.org/home)
(http://www.nydems.org/)


The New York case study is useful to look at since in the USA the conservative Republicans are not in power and the Democrats are.With this change in role between the two countries, have the patterns that we have seen in the UK - that of the Right publicly attacking the Left - different?


In a nutshell, no. 


The Democrats website is far from perfect, before we look into it. There is a cheap dig at the Republican lobbyist Rick Lazio by the side of the site, which is a bit tacky by the standards of a serious political organisation. Compared to the Republicans however this is tame. Whilst the main story on the Democrats page is "Andrew Cuomo, The New New York Agenda: A Plan For Action", a plan for reform, the Republicans use their equivalent space to focus on the "Hall of Shame" of the Democrats leadership of New York, with satirical, "comical" images to boot. And it all seems a bit cheap.


Conclusions


I have only made these judgements by browsing the websites of these parties and not much else e.g. election campaign material. Both sides of the political spectrum tend to be at their ugliest during these elections and just as bad as each other (just search for election posters from previous elections on Google to find out). It isn't a new practice by any means, but the internet (and social networking) has just proved to be a new outlet for this propaganda. However, I would have to agree with Brooker. When it comes to these "dirty tactics" the Right appear to be more street-wise than the Left. They have their reasons, of course; the Conservatives have big cuts to make and want to place as much blame as possible on the previous administration, whilst the Republicans have mid-term elections this November. But overall, although the Left can often appear to be the more passionate, the Right have the sharper tongues. 


DC
x

There's something about milk.

Hey,

Not the best of weeks for dairy then, is it? First we are told that some of the milk we drink isn't from cows, but from something that used to be a cow but isn't a cow anymore. Or it could be, because we are told the milk is actually from a cow that is still a cow, not an artificial cow that used to be a cow but isn't anymore.You get that?

Yeah, I didn't either. In Dara O'Briain's book "Tickling the English" he divides the English/British public into two groups; pragmatics and romanticists. The pragmatic people just get on with their lives, whereas the romantics are rather eccentric; hysteria about the dangers of immigration and causes of cancer, reliving the "highlights" of that war we won against Germany all those years ago and all that. It all kind of sounds like that newspaper I don't really like. I like to think I am the former; basically, the world is overpopulated, with five billion more people on the planet than their was a century ago. This means that we need to find a way to feed all these people before Thomas Malthus's theory - that the world can only cater so many people before it's natural balance is restored through war, famine and disease - is drastically proved right. If this means that we need to create more cows, crops and cider artificially (OK,  the last one is because I'm greedy) then so be it.

The European Union, has stated that there is nothing wrong with this milk, yet it hasn't stopped some. On a brief visit to the Daily Express website (my second favourite paper) I typed into the search engine "cow milk danger" which popped up a comment which said, "no wonder there is so much cancer". The right-wing is bloody rather funny sometimes.

 Despite these "revelations" about these artificial cows (which sounds like a Jeremy Kyle-esque insult) I can't see why everyone is so surprised. I mean, they have been saying "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" for as long as I can remember. You silly people, if only you listened! I'm only surprises nobody has accused Kraft of doing this in a sick retaliation to the mess that "we" did to the Gulf of Mexico.

Secondly, rumour has it that the coalition could be abolishing free milk for children in schools. Sounds very familiar that, doesn't it? Sounds a bit like Thatcher, doesn't it? This highlights one thing; that the Tories really, and I mean really, do not like milk! Is everyone at Eton lactose intolerant? Does it make Boris Johnson "a bit gassy" or Theresa May's throat swell up? I don't know. But how can you have a "Big Society" without the friendly help of calcium to keep our kids strong? Tell me, Mr Gove!

They can of course just claim it is to cut another of these inefficiencies that those nasty free-spending Labour folk left behind that they have to sort out. But to cut something as symbolic during the Thatcher years as the free milk is just a bit too ideologically driven during these times. Besides, if it's because milk is quite expensive, I hear there is some quality artificial cow milk going about which is as cheap as ever the now.

DC
x

I'm still alive! But I'm on Soccerlens

Hey,

Sorry about my blog avoidance of recent weeks. I really am. These last few weeks I have been writing for this football site, called "Soccerlens". It's good experience for writing, although I have been told by some brave anonymous posters "to do my research" and, interestingly, I'm English when I have wrote about Celtic. I think it's because despite being a Celtic fan I don't have these green-goggles on which make my eyes believe that they can do no wrong.

Anyway, that's where I have been. I'm still alive. But I do miss being overtly sarcastic on things not related to football. I feel I need to write in this again.

http://soccerlens.com/author/davidchilds/

DC
x

If they think this Raoul Moat thing is bad, wait until they see Sickipedia.

Hey,

Excuse me for the lateness of my blog on this subject, but this Raoul Moat thing got a wee bit out of hand didn't it? From the seeds of a "tribute" page on Facebook grew a monster; evidence being the response of David Cameron during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Question Time on Thursday and The Sun's campaign to find who started the group by Friday.

They clearly don't go online that often do they, these politician folk. Raoul Moat is not the hero of the poor, white, lower classes as George Galloway described on Question Time  this week. He is just the latest in a line of evil people who have been the latest thing to joke about. And besides, how can we take the situation seriously if Paul Gascoigne is involved?

I don't know whether to be worried or excited about the day they discover Sickipedia or TrueLad. Stuff like this Facebook page have been going about for ages - when previously you got those awful jokes from someone at work or school on your phone, you now get with ease from these sites. Actually, there is an entire database of jokes that you would never find on TV (bar Frankie Boyle or, God forbid, Jim Davidson) for you to enjoy, for want of a better word. To see a group about Moat wasn't unusual for me, it was the latest punchline.

I may be desensitised, because I was brought up with all this stuff, but this all seemed an overreaction. Stalin once said that,

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic."

Now I'm not one to agree with Stalin. But this blunt assessment can be used to explain why some people outside of Northumberland failed to take this manhunt seriously. I have only been on this planet for nineteen years, but during that time I've experienced (indirectly, I might add, or else I'd be mentally buggered ) 9/11, July 7th bombings, Haiti, Columbine, Fritzl, Derrick Bird, two continuing wars and the Middle East in general, to name but a few. Nobody is denying that what happened was horrible, but when these things become decreasingly rare, it fails to have the same impact. Imagine if you had turkey for dinner every day and not just Christmas? It wouldn't be the same. Combine this with TV shows such as Family Guy  and South Park - hardly the pinnacles of international diplomacy - and what you get is a generation which sees the events of recent days as an episode of 24 rather than something that could seriously harm them.

This I think is somewhat refreshing; in his book "The Hell of It All", Charlie Brooker notes how the vast majority of us will lead fairly dull lives, where these big disasters will not affect most of us. So the quicker we realise that we are not constantly at risk (thanks, Daily Mail et al) the better. So relax Mr Cameron, please.

DC
x

Northern Ireland.

Hey,

The last couple of days have been spent in Northern Ireland, mainly in Moira and Lisburn. I think Lisburn is a city, and Moira is within the City of Lisburn, right? I'm not sure. Either way, most of my time in Northern Ireland, bar an afternoon in Belfast was spent in these places. Now, if you had been watching the news, you would probably be aware of the 12th July celebrations and I'm going to assume you know what the reasons for the 12th July and why they are, to put it nicely, controversial.

You've seen the coverage, the CCTV, the flutes, the fires, the orange, the injuries, the parades. You know what's happened. It's not nice.

This blog is a defence of Northern Ireland. I was in Northern Ireland for roughly four days, in which I stayed at my friend's house (Hutchy, here is your name drop, are you happy? I hope so!) in Lisburn, and, if we ignore the flags - they love their flags, those Irish - for most of the time I could've been in any part of the United Kingdom. The hospitality was great, my night out in Moira - a converted shed, true story - was really good. I say shed, it was a barn, with two floors, one of which was closed off. If you get the chance, go to the Four Trees there. It's lovely.

The thing is, Northern Ireland is not just any part of the United Kingdom; everything about it is unique, from the ethnicity, the political parties, devolution (or lack of), to the flags. I will not shut up about these flags! They are visually impressive, all orange and British and red-handed and what not. English folk may be used to them, because In-ger-land qualify for major football tournaments on a regular basis and it is an excuse for this excessive patriotism. But I am Scottish; we don't do football tournaments. Heck, we don't even do football most of the time. So this flag-obsession doesn't come naturally.

It's important to find humour in some of the things I saw or else we would all become so depressed with life that we would just go into self-induced comas from Sky News coverage. For instance, the orange marches have massive banners, which all contain the phrase "L.O.L". This means, to them, the Lodge of Something-that-I-couldn't-find-out-on-Wikipedia-before-I-wrote-this-blog.  To most of us, however,  this means "laugh out loud". If we are honest, if these flags have I.D.S.T on them, there might not be all of this trouble going on. After all, if deleted, it's still true.

Northern Ireland has it's problems, but what country doesn't? Luxembourg? Maybe. But who would want to live in Luxembourg? Luxembourg is only famous for, errr, I'm not sure what. Not being France? If you are going to visit Northern Ireland, the 12th July isn't ideal. But the centre of Belfast is a modern, vibrant place which can appeal to anyone. So overall, my point is, don't be put off by the scenes of the last few days, for if you do that you may as well rule out Rothbury. After all, they had Paul Gascoigne roaming free on Friday night.

DC
x

p.s. Congrats to Spain and especially Paul the Octopus, who successfully predicted the result once again (see previous blog). News has it he is going to retire now, which I worry is fancy talk for "calamari".


DC
x

Never doubt the Octopus.

Hey, 


What is rubbish about the World Cup is that everyone is interested. Does this make sense? Let me explain. Believe it or not, but not everyone likes football. It's true. Obviously I'm not one of those people, the prospect of watching Partick Thistle on a wet November night genuinely appeals to me. Well, not genuinely, but it's better than what will be on BBC Three that evening.

Not everyone likes football, but most people take an interest in the World Cup. It is one of the few things that can unite a nation; South Africa, as a fine host, has gathered much pride from this tournament and the World Cup winning side of 1998 helped race relations in France with a team that contained many of immigrant descent - the most notable being Zinedine Zidane.

Therefore public interest in football, albeit for a month, is heightened somewhat. TV ratings for England matches during the World Cup were roughly 20 million, compared to six million viewers ITV would expect for a Champions League match involving an English team. Ultimately, three times as many people care about football, but this means they also have opinions, and their opinions are pretty much pointless. How can they honestly care about Rob Green's form when they don't have a clue what team he plays for? Infact, how dare they have an opinion on my sport? This feeling of disgust (and snobbery, awful, sporting snobbery) is similar to that I felt during the General Election, politics and football are exclusively my things, so go away please. For people not interested in football, the only thing I can compare it to is when your favourite band makes it big. They are no longer your band as such, but everyone likes them, making yourself slightly less unique. And that, my friend, hurts. 

Thank God then, for Paul the Octopus, who has guessed the results of Germany's World Cup matches correctly every single time. He even guessed Germany would lose to Serbia (highly unlikely following Germany's opening 4-0 victory) and that they would beat England and Argentina. Sadly for the Germans, he predicted that they would lose to Spain. What I really like about this is that it highlights how worthless everyone's opinions, including my own, have been in this unpredictable World Cup. Why bother with your say when an octopus can predict what is going to happen?

What does slightly concern me however is the thought process behind Paul (have I just referred to an octopus by his first name? Oh my). Seriously, when and how did they think this up? Who thinks an octopus can predict results with his tentacles? It's stupendous, but  almost charming, and ultimately it proves a penny for your thoughts are really all they are worth.

DC
x

Piers Morgan on Shanghai, apparently.

Hey,

I am a man who is interested in politics. This we know. People often ask me "why do you like politics? It's rubbish. Personally I prefer chicken". To me, though, politics is everything (chicken included).

Take for example, my job in a pub: the price of the Tennents that we sell is affected by Government laws; it costs money for the alcohol to be delivered, as lorry company's charge according to running costs such as petrol, staff wages etc; a VAT increase increases expenditure on near enough everything, and staff would be affected by National Insurance contributions and tax. What I earn has to be in correlation with the National Minimum Wage, which not all countries have. The World Cup is on the television, but it is on terrestrial (if you can still call it that) because in this country it is an A-listed event. This means that Sky can't buy the rights like they did with the Premiership, and other A-listed events are events such as Wimbledon and Formula 1. This means that people can watch these events without having to go to fine public houses such as the one I work in.

This, to me, is politics. I also find stuff such like Communism interesting, the (probable only) alternative to  capitalism and if it works. I studied the Soviet Union for a year and to see it's rise and fall was really interesting. Where the USSR collapsed under political reform, the regime in China was strengthened by changing the economic policy whilst keeping political freedoms limited.

So you can see that I was sort of looking forward to "Piers Morgan's Shanghai" which was on ITV last week.  Could Piers do some great investigative journalism about China? Whether the system which cracked two decades ago in the Soviet Union is showing similar signs of strain?

In a nutshell, no. What we did find out is the following;

* In Shanghai, there is a Tesco, where you can buy live eels.
* Some people drink wine with coke.
* They are rubbish at football.
* He couldn't get onto YouTube, which annoyed him.
* David Beckham is famous.

And that's about it, really. They had some shots of poor people, compared to some very, very, very rich people. But this could of been done in any city, not just Shanghai. I shouldn't really be too harsh though, this was ITV's filler whilst the BBC had a football match on. It wasn't intended to be a serious documentary, if you wanted that I recommend John Simpson's documentary about the fairly unknown city of Chongqing, which has a population of about 30 million yet ten years ago it was about half the size of three start hotel. You have to love state planning. I shouldn't be too surprised, really. After all, Piers Morgan's interview with the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown involved some Paxman-esque  questions such as whether he was part of the mile-high club (which was as awkward as the mental picture it created) and whether he got drunk at university. I don't need to know such details, not from him or anyone. Overall, it was interesting-ish in bits (the part about women having plastic surgery to look less oriental in particular) but I'm a cynical old git and it's easier to be grumpy.

DC
x

Recap. And a Mid-Blog Crisis.

Hey,

So how have you been recently? Good? I certainly hope so, what with your dodgy ankle and that. Should probably lay off the treadmill for a while. And the pies. Whoops, Freudian slip there.

Yeah, I think it's time for a wee re-evaluation of Summer 2010; in a nutshell, it has been pretty good. I am no longer a fishmonger, but now a drinksmonger (not a word, but it is now, because I say so) at The Crofter. It's a nice pub, I recommend it.

It's a bit weird, looking back on last year's blog entries - the topic of discussion doesn't really differ really, general distress of working in a supermarket - since this year I don't really have much to complain about. I'm working, but it's actually quite good. I go on holiday to Belfast next week (incidentally whilst some marching is going on) and the World Cup is on. A lot. So life is fine. Which, unfortunately, means writing about how shit my life is is quite tricky really. This means I've tried to write about other things (sport, being a "leftie", television, etc) but it's just not the same. Is it a case in which for one to have a funny (or at least attempted humour) personal blog one must have a miserable life? It feels like it.

So what should I do people? It is said that for a record company to be successful it must sign bands of the same genre. Should I, if I want to be a journalist, just focus on one subject? And if so, what subject? I need answers people!

Help me out please,

DC
x

Shift of emphasis a must for change.

Hey,

So, another World Cup, another defeat then for Ingerland. One thing which seems different this time around is that the ready-made scapegoat, Frank Lampard's clear goal, has been kept in it's box. Heck, I doubt they are even going to take it out of it's packaging. No point, really. Germany were youthful, vibrant, energetic and creative. I don't think any of those words could be applied to England yesterday. What is important is that, rather than blame isolated incidents on failure, English football has had to re-evaluate it's position in the world of football. The best league in the world? Possibly, but is a poor national side a price worth paying? Fans probably wouldn't mind seeing chances given to younger players, but one would wonder if investors would feel the same. The bleak reality is, as much as we would like to believe, football is not about the supporters anymore, it is about the chequebook. Or chip and pin, I guess, if you hate outdated clichés. You know, like "England are the better team on paper". For more information, see Alan Hansen.

We speak of grass-roots football, yet we continue to play during the time of year in which, ironically, there is not much grass to play on at all. The continuation of the football calendar throughout the frankly awful months of December and January is holding English (and Scottish I must add) back. I can only think of two reasons why they continue to play throughout the worst of winter; nostalgia for the FA Cup third round and money. Stupid, stupid money.

Now, The FA and others will disagree with the final point, for it is that the football calendar is simply too congested to allow a four-week break in the middle of it. But I reckon I have a solution, or at least, a possible solution; The Carling Cup. If a Conservative administration were to start slashing the FA, I'm pretty convinced that the Carling Cup would face the metaphorical axe. The reasons are as follows;

1) It takes it up time.
From late September onwards, the Carling Cup takes up most of the English non-European midweek slots. To compound this the semi-finals, more often than not competed amongst "bigger teams", are over two-legs, taking up even more time as well as the final on a Sunday. These mid-week slots could be used for League matches, to maintain the tradition of FA Cup matches being played on a Saturday. Or whenever the television channels says.

2) Does anyone actually like it?
I'm not too sure if anyone actually takes the Carling Cup seriously. We know Arsene Wenger doesn't, judging from his team selection in recent seasons. Unlike the FA Cup, which has a heritage to cling on to, the Carling Cup simply doesn't have that much of a history. Formed in 1960, no one can really think of a "classic" League Cup moment. Leicester won it a couple of times, I think? A final at Wembley is nice, but the reward for winning the trophy is a place in the Europa League. If they had the choice between a lump sum and a place in the Europa League, I'm pretty sure most teams would take the money.

3) We shouldn't be scared of change.
If UEFA can change the final of the Champions League to a Saturday, introduce extra officials and dissolve the Cup Winners' Cup (remember that?) then stopping the Carling Cup doesn't seem that big a deal. Other countries, like Italy, Spain and Germany (ironic) only have the one major domestic cup competition. It just makes sense.

Overall, I understand the hypocrisy of using the Carling Cup as a scapegoat for England's demise, when I started my argument by saying that this blame culture was over. Yet, to me, it would emphasise a change in priorities from the money men to the what the FA should care the most about, their national team.

DC
x