I've finally got round to reading Colin Shindler's "Manchester City Ruined My Life". Yes, I know it's a '90s classic of the intellectualisation of the football fan, and I've read other Shindler books, but for some reason never his first.
Anyway, while I'm enjoying it, I can't help but admitting that the most fascinating thing I'm finding with it is wondering whether this fan who grew up with Trautmann and came of age in the Summerbee-Bell-Young-Lee era still holds such a depth of feeling for Man City under the Al-Mubaraks.
Notwithstanding the irony that the new regime probably isn't especially Jewish-friendly (although I've nothing to suggest the Abu Dhabi royals are particularly anti-Zionist), it must be a strange concept for the long-standing Citeh fan to go from being widely warmly regarded by the general football supporting populace for their devotion to a long-running joke - albeit while still getting the same sort of jibes as all Newcastle and Leeds supporters that their claims to unusual loyalty while in the doldrums don't really stand up to any great scrutiny - to being adherents of a rather depressing splurge of unearned wealth on some of the greediest and most despicable of the generally unprepossessing current generation of footballers.
I'm a Spurs fan and I accept that our present relative success has been made possible in part by the backing of Joe Lewis' money. But I don't feel that this investment has changed the ethos or overall feel of the club. But the transformation of Manchester City, for example, or Blackburn or Chelsea is clear. My query is whether, as a fan, you start to care less. Whether more money and more scumbags on the playing staff makes you less engaged, less raw when the results go against you and, in particular, less exultant in the good times.
For the sake of the honest, long-suffering fans of clubs like Man City, I hope not. But I can't help suspecting that it might.
Tuesday 18 January 2011
Wednesday 8 December 2010
Cameron and short-termism
Before the disaster of 1997 and the subsequent humiliations of Hague and IDS, it was said even grudgingly by Conservative Party detractors that the one thing that organisation was good at doing was winning elections. The 2010 experience proved they have not regained their former expertise (although it is worth remembering that, had the unions not decided to destroy the Callaghan administraton and, ultimately, their own power, in the winter 1978/79, Thatcher might have struggled to beat a tired and discredited Labour administration with an unelected leader [although at least Sunny Jim had the grace to win an internal struggle]). Indeed, the ongoing student whining must serve as a constant reminder both to Tory high command and their disaffected back benchers of the inconvenient partner in the government bed.
Thus it is perhaps not surprising that thoughts are already turning to the next election and how to restore the Conservative reputation as an efficient electoral machine, a reputation last earned in 1992, at least at national level. If Cameron gets his way, and personally I hope he does not, that will be 2015 under his hugely misguided fixed-term parliaments wheeze. More likely it will be swifter than that as the ongoing political flux brings down that idea, along with AV (good) and fairer constituency sizes (bad, but it appears you can't win 'em all), as well as eventually breaking up with Nick and Dave show.
Predicting when the next election is, even before one gets into who might win it, is a pretty difficult business, and, if my increasingly infrequent trips to hand cash to the bookies are anything to go by, my punditry is not something on which to be relied. However, all three parties have problems: the Tories are the public face of the cuts, the Lib Dems have a trust issue and Labour have Ed, pointlessly sniping from the sidelines about a problem he helped create and which he appears to have zero constructive ideas on how to solve. Neither of the main parties looks like a natural winner at this stage and we don't know how long until blue and red will try once again to claim a victory that doesn't have a yellow hue that proves that all that glisters is not gold.
Any advantage might be crucial and that, I assume, has driven Conservative Central Office to perform a u-turn on pledges made to their NI chairman, Irwin Armstrong, and back down on a commitment to stand candidates in next year's elections to the NI Assembly. The prize appears to be a deal by which UUP MPs would take the Conservative whip at Westminster, potentially giving the Tories a push towards overall majority if once again no party is able to do a convincing least-worst job in the campaign.
But what are chances of the UUP, current seats nil, actually being able to make a meaningful contribution should the Tories fall agonisingly short once again? At first glance, as the party lurches from one defection crisis to another as it "shakes out" much of its liberal wing, it appears that Elliott has sold Cameron a pup. However, despite the desire many of us, myself included, who had hoped for progress towards a normalisation of NI politics and whose hopes have been dealt a hammer blow by this announcement, might hrbour that the UUP will continue to wither and die, I suspect their general election prospects next time round could well actually be better than in the recent past, provided Tom continues to steer his steady course and they avoid any wipeout in the intervening NI-specific polls between now and the next Westminster contest.
For example, and even after my previous comments about my tipping record I'd be prepared to stake hard cash on this, Mike Nesbitt will win in Strangford next time round. Nesbitt has backed the right horse (torturous extened gambling analogy only partially intentional) internally and, as befits an experienced media operator, has made all the right noises in his fledgling political career thus far. In contrast, Jim Shannon MP has been, from the Ulster-Scots in his maiden speech forward, just as woeful as predicted. Crucially, Nesbitt has the high profile that is so advantegeous, particularly in NI where personality every time trumps policy, and, let's face it, there's hardly likely to be much policy difference between an Elliott-led UUP and an increasingly centrist and secularist DUP anyway. So we can fairly confidently chalk up one MP to help out the Tories should they require it. And, if that just happened to be all that was required, I'm sure Central Office would consider the deal a job well done, particularly given that the individual would be just the "right sort" envisaged by the New Force link-up in the first place, a man who'd be right at home with a ministerial, maybe even ultimately a Cabinet, role.
However, it might not only be one. Sir Reg Emp(t)ey, a nice enough guy but one of the worst long-term politicians at actually getting elected for anything there perhaps has ever been, almost won South Antrim from the odious Willie McCrea, despite being parachuted in at the last moment after yet another of the debilitating internal disputes that characterised the UCUNF debacle. The time between May 2010 and the next election will see the NI demographic continue to shift inexorably away from the dinosaurs like the boul' Reverend, which should make him even more vulnerable to either defeat or deselection. The key task for the UUP is to identify a credible opponent either for McCrea or his replacement and start marketing him or her clearly and as early as possible. As long as the UUP can hit upon the right individual they could and should win a second seat.
As a certain NI comedian might say, "There's more..." Freed from the constraint of claiming to offer non-sectarian politics to all, the UUP should be able to do a deal with the DUP over FST and South Belfast, whereby Tom himself could look to harness the unionist community in his heartland and claim a third seat. It will not be easy, as the SDLP are unlikely to be able to put up a candidate as impressive as last time out for an impossible task, so the stay-at-home (or TUV scrawling...) Unionists will have to be roused in far greater numbers to best a rising SF vote in a straight 'ussuns-and-themmuns struggle. Nonetheless, a third seat is possible.
Fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh seats, surely not? I'd grant you, we may be moving into the territory of the highly unlikely, but there are four other seats were the scenario of a UUP victor could be constructed. In North Down, the awful Sylvia has made her point and, given her attendance record, clearly doesn't really like being an MP. A "Labour" peerage for this most unlikely of socialists would almost certainly be enough to open up the field in North Down, where the DUP has never won. Again, candidate choice and promotion is key, but there's unlikely to be an option worse than Ian Parsley and North Down (along with South Antrim) could be a breeding ground for the rebooted Conservative election machine to experiment with their financial and marketing clout to create the new breed of UUP-as the-Conservative-brand generation.
Upper Bann was in the news recently for all the wrong reasons as the UUP lost one of their better performers in the May 2010 fiasco in "Flash" Harry Hamilton. A messy business and one I'm sure was motivated at least as much by personalities as future party direction. However, the most interesting aspect, for me, was the main beneficiary of Hamilton's demise, Colin McCusker. The McCusker name is an attractive one for the Elliott UUP, and readers can read a homily to the late Harold on Mike Nesbitt's website, for example. I won't claim to be an expert on him, as he died before I'd left primary school. However, in the new UUP narrative, I see him cast as the lost leder, the successor to Molyneaux that never was and whose untimely demise, conveniently for the story, opened the door to Trimble and all the pain that caused to the UUP. So, if not the lost leader, why not his son, as the prefect antidote to the Trimble-ism that brought the Upper Bann UUP to its current sorry state? My inkling is that Colin is being groomed as the challenger to David Simpson and, given the anonymity of said opponent, I can see a good campaign returning a McCusker once again in this constituency.
The other possibles move even further into the longshot territory, and both are worth a mention solely due to the glaring weakness of the two incumbents, namely East Belfast's Naomi Long and North Antrim's Ian Paisley Junior. A UUP candidate in either would have to come from a long way back, but the former constituency will presumably also have a new DUP challenger starting from a lower base than the estate agent, while the good burghers of the East will have had at least a few years to realise that while Naomi might be talented at certain things (although droning on and eating are hardly two prerequisites of a superb public representative), being an effective MP ain't one of them. Equally, North Antrim's voters might have cottoned on to the fact that just being someone's son does not outweigh being a prat, although I wouldn't put money on that one. However, if Allister could stomach sticking around for a bit longer and there is a strong message that, while the TUV is a good home for a traditionalist's protest vote, only a UUP candidate could actually win, then again, with the right candidate (say Tory-to-UUP defector Duncan Crossey?) and a focused campaign, North Antrim could become a possibililty.
So, one highly likely gain and maybe up to six more if everything fall right for a Tory-backed UUP is the prize that Cameron's deal could deliver him and his party the next time we nationally go the polls. Whichever the number, if it just happens to be enough to drag the Tories over the finishing line, he and his advisors will no doubt consider it a gamble that was well worth taking.
Personally, I think it represents a dreadful decision, even if it so happens to allow the Conservatives an overall majority next time round, a prospect I would normally (and probably deep down, no matter the sense of betrayal I feel today, would still) welcome.
It's bad for the party. The easy jibe from all Conservative opponents, be they Labour, Lib Dem (when allowed), SNP, PC, any of the NI parties including the UUP when it suits them, the left-leaning media or bar room socialists on any comment feed on the web, is that they are an English party. With this injunction on putting up candidates in NI and UUP "franchise", allied to an increasing enthusiam for semi-detaching Scotland, they play into these opponents' hands, even when the experience in Wales, for example, provides evidence against. The local Conservatives might well have failed to gain an NI Assembly seat - with the delay in committing to a campaign, anger over cuts that have to be made but are unlikely to be welcomed and the DUP's "SF as FM" bogeyman trump card, it wasn't going to be easy. But a commitment to stand and to expend resources would have strengthened the Conservatives as a, and indeed the only, national party fully engaged in all parts of the UK. Now they cannot make such a defence and both the party and, ultimately, the union itself is weaker for that.
It's bad for unionism. This might seem a bit of a non-sequitur as the UUP, the slightly less toxic brand of Unionism (note the big U) celebrates a deal that removes a potential opponent and shores up, to some extent, both its coffers and its weakness towards haemmoraging more voters on a centre ground becoming crowded by Alliance's growing confidence and the DUP's centrist drift. However, there remains the obvious issue that unionists from without the Unionist community will not vote for a party with the UUP's baggage and Tom's orange sash in any great numbers. Whether they'd vote for the Conservatives, at the present time, in any great numbers either is a moot point. Should the Tories have made any inroads into their natural constituency, middle-class people from the Unionist community turned off by Unionism, and started having some electoral success, it would have increased the momentum towards Labour and the Lib Dems fully committing to NI and acted as the catalyst towards the shift to normal politics that will be the only thing which saves NI over the long haul. As such, Cameron has sacrificed a position that had long-term benefit for not only the Unionist community but also NI society as a whole, for the sake of a few potential seats that he nmight or might not need in a forthcoming election.
It's bad for the NI political process as it currently stands. When the Tories announced their original deal with the UUP, there was much bleating from SF and even the SDLP that this arrangement was not in keeping with the "spirit" of the GFA, that the British government had to be a honest broker who wouldn't take sides, while ignoring, of course in typical SF style, the Irish government's role as a highly partisan broker through 30-odd years of peace negotiations. It could relatively easily be dismissed as bluffing by parties made fairly umcomfortable by the prospect of the old certainties that guaranteed them votes through the same tired old sectarian rhetoric coming to an end. There was nothing wrong with a mainland party targeting NI representation with an avowedly unionist bent, indeed logically a pan-UK party could have no other, just as any of the souttern parties setting up in the North would necessarily have a nationalist hue. However, what the Conservatives, crucially, were promising was non-sectarian unionism, not Unionism - the sort of unionism that underpins the current status of NI due to the fact that a significant minority of the Nationalist community are unionist on the border question for sound practical reasons. The UUP could be semi-detached allies, at least until they offered genuine reform, but only under a unionist, not a Unionist banner.
However, to return to my point on any FST-SB pact, the UUP are now, at least apparently, freed of the constraint of having to offer non-sectarian politics to all. There do not seem to be any obligations on them to abandon their Unionism, but instead have secured Conservative backing with no strings attached, no demand to reform. This shifts the ground in terms of central government dealings with NI parties. No longer can the Conservatives look at Unionism and Natonalism in the face and say, "We disagree with both of you, we are small-u unionists but not big-U Unionists," because that will not be true. I believe this is a dangerous path to have taken.
My sympathies go out to good people like Irwin Armstrong and the party workers on the floor. And my contempt goes out to Cameron and his cronies, who put potential short-term gain over the long-term prospects for both Conservative unionism and NI's future. Shame on them.
Thus it is perhaps not surprising that thoughts are already turning to the next election and how to restore the Conservative reputation as an efficient electoral machine, a reputation last earned in 1992, at least at national level. If Cameron gets his way, and personally I hope he does not, that will be 2015 under his hugely misguided fixed-term parliaments wheeze. More likely it will be swifter than that as the ongoing political flux brings down that idea, along with AV (good) and fairer constituency sizes (bad, but it appears you can't win 'em all), as well as eventually breaking up with Nick and Dave show.
Predicting when the next election is, even before one gets into who might win it, is a pretty difficult business, and, if my increasingly infrequent trips to hand cash to the bookies are anything to go by, my punditry is not something on which to be relied. However, all three parties have problems: the Tories are the public face of the cuts, the Lib Dems have a trust issue and Labour have Ed, pointlessly sniping from the sidelines about a problem he helped create and which he appears to have zero constructive ideas on how to solve. Neither of the main parties looks like a natural winner at this stage and we don't know how long until blue and red will try once again to claim a victory that doesn't have a yellow hue that proves that all that glisters is not gold.
Any advantage might be crucial and that, I assume, has driven Conservative Central Office to perform a u-turn on pledges made to their NI chairman, Irwin Armstrong, and back down on a commitment to stand candidates in next year's elections to the NI Assembly. The prize appears to be a deal by which UUP MPs would take the Conservative whip at Westminster, potentially giving the Tories a push towards overall majority if once again no party is able to do a convincing least-worst job in the campaign.
But what are chances of the UUP, current seats nil, actually being able to make a meaningful contribution should the Tories fall agonisingly short once again? At first glance, as the party lurches from one defection crisis to another as it "shakes out" much of its liberal wing, it appears that Elliott has sold Cameron a pup. However, despite the desire many of us, myself included, who had hoped for progress towards a normalisation of NI politics and whose hopes have been dealt a hammer blow by this announcement, might hrbour that the UUP will continue to wither and die, I suspect their general election prospects next time round could well actually be better than in the recent past, provided Tom continues to steer his steady course and they avoid any wipeout in the intervening NI-specific polls between now and the next Westminster contest.
For example, and even after my previous comments about my tipping record I'd be prepared to stake hard cash on this, Mike Nesbitt will win in Strangford next time round. Nesbitt has backed the right horse (torturous extened gambling analogy only partially intentional) internally and, as befits an experienced media operator, has made all the right noises in his fledgling political career thus far. In contrast, Jim Shannon MP has been, from the Ulster-Scots in his maiden speech forward, just as woeful as predicted. Crucially, Nesbitt has the high profile that is so advantegeous, particularly in NI where personality every time trumps policy, and, let's face it, there's hardly likely to be much policy difference between an Elliott-led UUP and an increasingly centrist and secularist DUP anyway. So we can fairly confidently chalk up one MP to help out the Tories should they require it. And, if that just happened to be all that was required, I'm sure Central Office would consider the deal a job well done, particularly given that the individual would be just the "right sort" envisaged by the New Force link-up in the first place, a man who'd be right at home with a ministerial, maybe even ultimately a Cabinet, role.
However, it might not only be one. Sir Reg Emp(t)ey, a nice enough guy but one of the worst long-term politicians at actually getting elected for anything there perhaps has ever been, almost won South Antrim from the odious Willie McCrea, despite being parachuted in at the last moment after yet another of the debilitating internal disputes that characterised the UCUNF debacle. The time between May 2010 and the next election will see the NI demographic continue to shift inexorably away from the dinosaurs like the boul' Reverend, which should make him even more vulnerable to either defeat or deselection. The key task for the UUP is to identify a credible opponent either for McCrea or his replacement and start marketing him or her clearly and as early as possible. As long as the UUP can hit upon the right individual they could and should win a second seat.
As a certain NI comedian might say, "There's more..." Freed from the constraint of claiming to offer non-sectarian politics to all, the UUP should be able to do a deal with the DUP over FST and South Belfast, whereby Tom himself could look to harness the unionist community in his heartland and claim a third seat. It will not be easy, as the SDLP are unlikely to be able to put up a candidate as impressive as last time out for an impossible task, so the stay-at-home (or TUV scrawling...) Unionists will have to be roused in far greater numbers to best a rising SF vote in a straight 'ussuns-and-themmuns struggle. Nonetheless, a third seat is possible.
Fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh seats, surely not? I'd grant you, we may be moving into the territory of the highly unlikely, but there are four other seats were the scenario of a UUP victor could be constructed. In North Down, the awful Sylvia has made her point and, given her attendance record, clearly doesn't really like being an MP. A "Labour" peerage for this most unlikely of socialists would almost certainly be enough to open up the field in North Down, where the DUP has never won. Again, candidate choice and promotion is key, but there's unlikely to be an option worse than Ian Parsley and North Down (along with South Antrim) could be a breeding ground for the rebooted Conservative election machine to experiment with their financial and marketing clout to create the new breed of UUP-as the-Conservative-brand generation.
Upper Bann was in the news recently for all the wrong reasons as the UUP lost one of their better performers in the May 2010 fiasco in "Flash" Harry Hamilton. A messy business and one I'm sure was motivated at least as much by personalities as future party direction. However, the most interesting aspect, for me, was the main beneficiary of Hamilton's demise, Colin McCusker. The McCusker name is an attractive one for the Elliott UUP, and readers can read a homily to the late Harold on Mike Nesbitt's website, for example. I won't claim to be an expert on him, as he died before I'd left primary school. However, in the new UUP narrative, I see him cast as the lost leder, the successor to Molyneaux that never was and whose untimely demise, conveniently for the story, opened the door to Trimble and all the pain that caused to the UUP. So, if not the lost leader, why not his son, as the prefect antidote to the Trimble-ism that brought the Upper Bann UUP to its current sorry state? My inkling is that Colin is being groomed as the challenger to David Simpson and, given the anonymity of said opponent, I can see a good campaign returning a McCusker once again in this constituency.
The other possibles move even further into the longshot territory, and both are worth a mention solely due to the glaring weakness of the two incumbents, namely East Belfast's Naomi Long and North Antrim's Ian Paisley Junior. A UUP candidate in either would have to come from a long way back, but the former constituency will presumably also have a new DUP challenger starting from a lower base than the estate agent, while the good burghers of the East will have had at least a few years to realise that while Naomi might be talented at certain things (although droning on and eating are hardly two prerequisites of a superb public representative), being an effective MP ain't one of them. Equally, North Antrim's voters might have cottoned on to the fact that just being someone's son does not outweigh being a prat, although I wouldn't put money on that one. However, if Allister could stomach sticking around for a bit longer and there is a strong message that, while the TUV is a good home for a traditionalist's protest vote, only a UUP candidate could actually win, then again, with the right candidate (say Tory-to-UUP defector Duncan Crossey?) and a focused campaign, North Antrim could become a possibililty.
So, one highly likely gain and maybe up to six more if everything fall right for a Tory-backed UUP is the prize that Cameron's deal could deliver him and his party the next time we nationally go the polls. Whichever the number, if it just happens to be enough to drag the Tories over the finishing line, he and his advisors will no doubt consider it a gamble that was well worth taking.
Personally, I think it represents a dreadful decision, even if it so happens to allow the Conservatives an overall majority next time round, a prospect I would normally (and probably deep down, no matter the sense of betrayal I feel today, would still) welcome.
It's bad for the party. The easy jibe from all Conservative opponents, be they Labour, Lib Dem (when allowed), SNP, PC, any of the NI parties including the UUP when it suits them, the left-leaning media or bar room socialists on any comment feed on the web, is that they are an English party. With this injunction on putting up candidates in NI and UUP "franchise", allied to an increasing enthusiam for semi-detaching Scotland, they play into these opponents' hands, even when the experience in Wales, for example, provides evidence against. The local Conservatives might well have failed to gain an NI Assembly seat - with the delay in committing to a campaign, anger over cuts that have to be made but are unlikely to be welcomed and the DUP's "SF as FM" bogeyman trump card, it wasn't going to be easy. But a commitment to stand and to expend resources would have strengthened the Conservatives as a, and indeed the only, national party fully engaged in all parts of the UK. Now they cannot make such a defence and both the party and, ultimately, the union itself is weaker for that.
It's bad for unionism. This might seem a bit of a non-sequitur as the UUP, the slightly less toxic brand of Unionism (note the big U) celebrates a deal that removes a potential opponent and shores up, to some extent, both its coffers and its weakness towards haemmoraging more voters on a centre ground becoming crowded by Alliance's growing confidence and the DUP's centrist drift. However, there remains the obvious issue that unionists from without the Unionist community will not vote for a party with the UUP's baggage and Tom's orange sash in any great numbers. Whether they'd vote for the Conservatives, at the present time, in any great numbers either is a moot point. Should the Tories have made any inroads into their natural constituency, middle-class people from the Unionist community turned off by Unionism, and started having some electoral success, it would have increased the momentum towards Labour and the Lib Dems fully committing to NI and acted as the catalyst towards the shift to normal politics that will be the only thing which saves NI over the long haul. As such, Cameron has sacrificed a position that had long-term benefit for not only the Unionist community but also NI society as a whole, for the sake of a few potential seats that he nmight or might not need in a forthcoming election.
It's bad for the NI political process as it currently stands. When the Tories announced their original deal with the UUP, there was much bleating from SF and even the SDLP that this arrangement was not in keeping with the "spirit" of the GFA, that the British government had to be a honest broker who wouldn't take sides, while ignoring, of course in typical SF style, the Irish government's role as a highly partisan broker through 30-odd years of peace negotiations. It could relatively easily be dismissed as bluffing by parties made fairly umcomfortable by the prospect of the old certainties that guaranteed them votes through the same tired old sectarian rhetoric coming to an end. There was nothing wrong with a mainland party targeting NI representation with an avowedly unionist bent, indeed logically a pan-UK party could have no other, just as any of the souttern parties setting up in the North would necessarily have a nationalist hue. However, what the Conservatives, crucially, were promising was non-sectarian unionism, not Unionism - the sort of unionism that underpins the current status of NI due to the fact that a significant minority of the Nationalist community are unionist on the border question for sound practical reasons. The UUP could be semi-detached allies, at least until they offered genuine reform, but only under a unionist, not a Unionist banner.
However, to return to my point on any FST-SB pact, the UUP are now, at least apparently, freed of the constraint of having to offer non-sectarian politics to all. There do not seem to be any obligations on them to abandon their Unionism, but instead have secured Conservative backing with no strings attached, no demand to reform. This shifts the ground in terms of central government dealings with NI parties. No longer can the Conservatives look at Unionism and Natonalism in the face and say, "We disagree with both of you, we are small-u unionists but not big-U Unionists," because that will not be true. I believe this is a dangerous path to have taken.
My sympathies go out to good people like Irwin Armstrong and the party workers on the floor. And my contempt goes out to Cameron and his cronies, who put potential short-term gain over the long-term prospects for both Conservative unionism and NI's future. Shame on them.
Friday 3 December 2010
A Throne of Ulster Day - a question of belonging
Should this blog ever get any readers, they might wonder about the name. Most literally, it's a Van Morrison lyric, from the song "Orangefield" on the album "Avalon Sunset":
On a golden autumn day
All my dreams came true in Orangefield
On a throne of Ulster day
You came my way in Orangefield
Far be it from me to suggest what Northern Ireland's grumpiest man was trying to say, but what the phrase means to me is one of those days when you feel you could only be in Ulster, something to do with the quality of the light, the way the place looks and feels and smells, the way its people behave.
I get this powerful surge of "Ulsterness" when I listen in particular to Van Morrison's East Belfast songs, the aforementioned Orangefield, Cyprus Avenue, Hyndford Street etc, because that's where I grew up, I recognise the places to which he refers and the things that happen, or at least their equivalents thirty years on (and in NI we know that often there's not that much differece!). I'm writing this just before, weather permitting, heading back to Belfast for the stag do of a friend who grew up a sreet removed from Cyprus Avenue. My aunt and uncle's house was in Cherryvalley, another of Morrison's places of references. He's singing about stuff I know well and hold dear. But he doesn't have a monopoly on it, and it isn't just places. Ash's Oh Yeah is perhaps my favourite song by a Northern Irish artist, capturing the almost limitless possibilities at the beginning of a nine week school holiday that is considerably longer than its mainland equivalent. The fact that Ash are my generation and the song appeared just as I started a memorable summer when I was 17 make it even more special. While I like the music of Snow Patrol, Two Door Cinema Club et al, Tim, Rick and the big lad on guitar will always be MY Ulster musical heroes.
I also get the feeling when I'm back, particularly in areas that I know particularly well, the East, the City Centre, the Ards/Bangor/Donaghadee triangle, the Mournes and the Coast Road. Whether I'd get as strong sentiments when visiting the Lakes (which I have rarely) or the Sperrins (to my knowledge, never been) is perhaps more open to debate. It's a sense of belonging, and of pride in the many things that recommend this wee land, and that it's "special". The throne of Ulster day, a crowned monarch of the greatest land on earth, "God's own country", there's nothing like it and nothing beating it.
Except, of course, that there is. I've recently been to the Lake District, and also read some of Hunter Davies and Stuart Maconie on it, and it knocks the bag out of anything Northern Ireland has to offer. I've been to other places, Norway's Lofoten Islands, Egypt, Iceland, the Austrian Alps, Brazil, where, quite frankly, you can see things which are far more impressive than anything Northern Ireland has to offer. Even in London, much derided and, at times, a monotonous drag of a place to live and work, there are a range of things to see and do that far outstrip what you can find over the water. Standing on the Castlreagh Hills looking down on Belfast is something I'd heartily endorse. But it doesn't compete with standing on the highest point of Hampstead Heath looking out over London.
So why the throne of Ulster day? Well, just because something isn't the best doesn't make it any less special. And having a sense of pride and belonging can transcend one's experience of things. The North Down coastline doesn't get the publicity of Noway's west coast because, err, it's not as good. but I'd far rather be in Donaghadee than Bergen, nice though the latter is. (I've a friend living there who comes from Comber, which maybe tells you more about Comber...) A sense of place is no bad thing, as long as there is, with it, a sense of perspective, for, without that, nationalism (in the general, not the Iris, sense) lies. Mooching around the Upper Netownards Road on a high summer's evening, grabbing chips from the Fryar Tuck, perhaps having a pint in The Point, seeing people you vaguely recognise, bumping into an old friend you haven't seen for donkeys', nodding to an old fella out for his constitutional, thinking about wandering up to Stormont for a walk but being too lazy, realistically this isn't the best possible use of one's time. But, to me, it sounds brilliant, sounds like the throne of Ulster day, something that couldn't be recreated anywhere else in the world.
As I said, I get these feelings at places I know well and I speculated on whether I'd experience a similar sense at less familiar spots. But the keen reader (don't laugh, someone will read this sometime, even if it's only my mum under duress) will notice that the examples remained within the six counties. I don't get any emotions of belonging when I'm over the border. Which isn't to say that I don't appreciate Dublin or Donegal, and I'd love to explore the west coast more fully as it looks truly amazing. However's it's not mine, not my country, not peopled by my kin. I'm Irish and proud to have been born on this island. But I'm as much Republic of Irish as I am Belgian, i.e. not at all. They have a foundation myth I don't recognise, they speak differently, the whole place feels different, the border is definitely and defiantly there in a sensual sesnse for me.
I feel British, but I recognise I am not English, nor Scottish, nor Welsh. I'm Northern Irish and that's why I feel the way I do, think the way I do, speak the way I do and (much to the chagrin of Mrs Ram, a Wiltshire lass) behave the way I do. I'm stubborn and just a bit emotionally stunted because I'm an Ulster male, and I use Ulster interchangeably with Northern Ireland unapologetically. Could a nationalist feel the same way as me? No, almost certainly not, because they come from an alternative, no less valid tradition. But I fail to see that anyone but the most blinkered Republican could delude themselves into thinking that a Ulster nationalist (in the Irish sense, not an Ulster Nat in the DUP bible-belt sense) has no difference to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.
It's sometimes said that there are two traditions on the island, but really there are three, Republic of Irish, (mainly) Ulster nationalist and Ulster unionist. There might be a bit of blurring amongst the staunch Republicans of, say, Louth, but they are as clearly divorced from the mainstream Republic of Irish as their fellow travellers in "da North". So do Ulster's nationalists reconise their own thrones of Ulster day, maybe not in the leafy suburbs of East Belfast and North Down, but in the imposing grandeur of certain parts of the north of the city, or in the Glens, or up in the Mournes. To some extent, I think yes, but they will clearly feel less "abroad" when straying over the border. That's natual and to be expected. However, the challenge for Northern Ireland going forward is to build a kingdom where the throne can sit as conmfortably in west Belfast as in east, and I mean that both in a hearts-and-minds but also a practical nitty-gritty way. It's the only path of lasting peace and prosperity.
Elsewhere in "Orangefield, Van the Man sings:
And the sun shone so bright
And it lit up all our days
All our days? In East Belfast? Catch yerself on, Ivan, that's an impossibility and you know it. Building a shared Northern Irish society, where the sun might light up all of our lives, might seem equally implausible, but it's not and it has to be done. The alternative is unsustainable, and the gold autumn days by the riverside will eventually be numbered.
On a golden autumn day
All my dreams came true in Orangefield
On a throne of Ulster day
You came my way in Orangefield
Far be it from me to suggest what Northern Ireland's grumpiest man was trying to say, but what the phrase means to me is one of those days when you feel you could only be in Ulster, something to do with the quality of the light, the way the place looks and feels and smells, the way its people behave.
I get this powerful surge of "Ulsterness" when I listen in particular to Van Morrison's East Belfast songs, the aforementioned Orangefield, Cyprus Avenue, Hyndford Street etc, because that's where I grew up, I recognise the places to which he refers and the things that happen, or at least their equivalents thirty years on (and in NI we know that often there's not that much differece!). I'm writing this just before, weather permitting, heading back to Belfast for the stag do of a friend who grew up a sreet removed from Cyprus Avenue. My aunt and uncle's house was in Cherryvalley, another of Morrison's places of references. He's singing about stuff I know well and hold dear. But he doesn't have a monopoly on it, and it isn't just places. Ash's Oh Yeah is perhaps my favourite song by a Northern Irish artist, capturing the almost limitless possibilities at the beginning of a nine week school holiday that is considerably longer than its mainland equivalent. The fact that Ash are my generation and the song appeared just as I started a memorable summer when I was 17 make it even more special. While I like the music of Snow Patrol, Two Door Cinema Club et al, Tim, Rick and the big lad on guitar will always be MY Ulster musical heroes.
I also get the feeling when I'm back, particularly in areas that I know particularly well, the East, the City Centre, the Ards/Bangor/Donaghadee triangle, the Mournes and the Coast Road. Whether I'd get as strong sentiments when visiting the Lakes (which I have rarely) or the Sperrins (to my knowledge, never been) is perhaps more open to debate. It's a sense of belonging, and of pride in the many things that recommend this wee land, and that it's "special". The throne of Ulster day, a crowned monarch of the greatest land on earth, "God's own country", there's nothing like it and nothing beating it.
Except, of course, that there is. I've recently been to the Lake District, and also read some of Hunter Davies and Stuart Maconie on it, and it knocks the bag out of anything Northern Ireland has to offer. I've been to other places, Norway's Lofoten Islands, Egypt, Iceland, the Austrian Alps, Brazil, where, quite frankly, you can see things which are far more impressive than anything Northern Ireland has to offer. Even in London, much derided and, at times, a monotonous drag of a place to live and work, there are a range of things to see and do that far outstrip what you can find over the water. Standing on the Castlreagh Hills looking down on Belfast is something I'd heartily endorse. But it doesn't compete with standing on the highest point of Hampstead Heath looking out over London.
So why the throne of Ulster day? Well, just because something isn't the best doesn't make it any less special. And having a sense of pride and belonging can transcend one's experience of things. The North Down coastline doesn't get the publicity of Noway's west coast because, err, it's not as good. but I'd far rather be in Donaghadee than Bergen, nice though the latter is. (I've a friend living there who comes from Comber, which maybe tells you more about Comber...) A sense of place is no bad thing, as long as there is, with it, a sense of perspective, for, without that, nationalism (in the general, not the Iris, sense) lies. Mooching around the Upper Netownards Road on a high summer's evening, grabbing chips from the Fryar Tuck, perhaps having a pint in The Point, seeing people you vaguely recognise, bumping into an old friend you haven't seen for donkeys', nodding to an old fella out for his constitutional, thinking about wandering up to Stormont for a walk but being too lazy, realistically this isn't the best possible use of one's time. But, to me, it sounds brilliant, sounds like the throne of Ulster day, something that couldn't be recreated anywhere else in the world.
As I said, I get these feelings at places I know well and I speculated on whether I'd experience a similar sense at less familiar spots. But the keen reader (don't laugh, someone will read this sometime, even if it's only my mum under duress) will notice that the examples remained within the six counties. I don't get any emotions of belonging when I'm over the border. Which isn't to say that I don't appreciate Dublin or Donegal, and I'd love to explore the west coast more fully as it looks truly amazing. However's it's not mine, not my country, not peopled by my kin. I'm Irish and proud to have been born on this island. But I'm as much Republic of Irish as I am Belgian, i.e. not at all. They have a foundation myth I don't recognise, they speak differently, the whole place feels different, the border is definitely and defiantly there in a sensual sesnse for me.
I feel British, but I recognise I am not English, nor Scottish, nor Welsh. I'm Northern Irish and that's why I feel the way I do, think the way I do, speak the way I do and (much to the chagrin of Mrs Ram, a Wiltshire lass) behave the way I do. I'm stubborn and just a bit emotionally stunted because I'm an Ulster male, and I use Ulster interchangeably with Northern Ireland unapologetically. Could a nationalist feel the same way as me? No, almost certainly not, because they come from an alternative, no less valid tradition. But I fail to see that anyone but the most blinkered Republican could delude themselves into thinking that a Ulster nationalist (in the Irish sense, not an Ulster Nat in the DUP bible-belt sense) has no difference to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.
It's sometimes said that there are two traditions on the island, but really there are three, Republic of Irish, (mainly) Ulster nationalist and Ulster unionist. There might be a bit of blurring amongst the staunch Republicans of, say, Louth, but they are as clearly divorced from the mainstream Republic of Irish as their fellow travellers in "da North". So do Ulster's nationalists reconise their own thrones of Ulster day, maybe not in the leafy suburbs of East Belfast and North Down, but in the imposing grandeur of certain parts of the north of the city, or in the Glens, or up in the Mournes. To some extent, I think yes, but they will clearly feel less "abroad" when straying over the border. That's natual and to be expected. However, the challenge for Northern Ireland going forward is to build a kingdom where the throne can sit as conmfortably in west Belfast as in east, and I mean that both in a hearts-and-minds but also a practical nitty-gritty way. It's the only path of lasting peace and prosperity.
Elsewhere in "Orangefield, Van the Man sings:
And the sun shone so bright
And it lit up all our days
All our days? In East Belfast? Catch yerself on, Ivan, that's an impossibility and you know it. Building a shared Northern Irish society, where the sun might light up all of our lives, might seem equally implausible, but it's not and it has to be done. The alternative is unsustainable, and the gold autumn days by the riverside will eventually be numbered.
Thursday 2 December 2010
World Cup decisions made
The (almost certainly horribly corrupt, but you shouldn't have needed to watch Panorama to tell you that) FIFA mandarins have spoken, and the big news, as far as UK media outlets are concerned anyway, is that England has been defeated by the evil Ruskies. You might find out in a post script that Qatar have got 2022.
The Wikileaks revelations, of more in another post hopefully, are perfectly timed for the inevitable outpouring of jingoistic fury over the choice of Russia - with its Mafia state having almost certainly, in the simple minds of certain sections of the English press, having done a cosy deal with the money-hungry FIFA bigwigs to screw gallant Albion out of her rightful prize. The fact that England's chances, according to analysis of the likely voting patterns prior to the decision, depended on whether it had sufficiently fawned enough over Jack Warner, a man who might actually be even more odious than Sepp Blatter himelf (and who quite readily plays the "racism" card" whenever anyone dares to point out just how venal and disgustng he is) will, of course, be quietly ignored.
However, putting the rights and wrongs of the whole grubbly process asde, what to think of the two winning candidates? Personally, I'm pretty excited, even if, for reasons of pure proximity, disappointed that England didn't get the nod. The fact that, barring when the Euro Champs were a shadow of their current selves back in the 1960s, the USSR/Russia has never held a major football competition is a major anomaly that will now be addressed. I have every confidence that the infrastructure will be put in place and the tournament will go well. While distances will be an issue, I'm encouraged that the venues will be limited to western Russia and, most importantly, that groups will be organised geographically. It's a pet theory of mine that one of the factors behind player lethargy in recent WCs is the distances players have to travel as group games flit all over the place. A return to the model seen for example, in Italia 90 or Euro 96, where two grounds close to each other hosted single groups will be a positive factor, I believe.
Heat will obviously be an issue, both in Russia and in Qatar. But SA in winter was supposed to be more comfortable, and it was the worst WC so far (although altitude and the farce of the windcatcher ball might also have been factors). Even Germany in 2006 was baking hot at times and, with the exception of Australia in 2022, no venue offered an option where heat might not cause a potential issue. Hard as it might be to remember as we shiver today, but England in late June can be unpleasantly sticky too.
Qatar is even more intriguing than Russia (and it's not often one can say that on any subject) as a choice. Yes, it's tiny, yes, it's got hardly any people, yes, it's not got much of a footballing heritage. But it's rolling in oil and gas money, it's got a can-do attitude and it will get the infrastructure right. The stadia will be top notch, there will be sufficient accomodation either within Qatar itself or its near neighbours and I expect most people will be pleasantly surprised by the end of the tourney. Moreover, time zone wise it possessed huge advantages over its competitors for those watching from home in Europe and the Americas.
While I'm sure FIFA didn't take it into consideration, I also believe awarding the WC to an Arab nation is a positive step. Those who try to stir up trouble within the islamic community like to highlight every perceived slight the West makes as if there is some concerted "new crusade". This decision makes a nonsense of that thesis (as indeed does the largely underexposed Wikileak that virtually every one of Iran's nervous [islamic] neighbours is desperate for someone to take out their burgeoning nuclear capacity before it's too late), and hopefully at least one mainstream commentator is prepared to say that.
So, all-in-all, I'm fairly satisfied that, while the process stinks, FIFA's ultimate decisions represent pretty good news for the football fan.
The Wikileaks revelations, of more in another post hopefully, are perfectly timed for the inevitable outpouring of jingoistic fury over the choice of Russia - with its Mafia state having almost certainly, in the simple minds of certain sections of the English press, having done a cosy deal with the money-hungry FIFA bigwigs to screw gallant Albion out of her rightful prize. The fact that England's chances, according to analysis of the likely voting patterns prior to the decision, depended on whether it had sufficiently fawned enough over Jack Warner, a man who might actually be even more odious than Sepp Blatter himelf (and who quite readily plays the "racism" card" whenever anyone dares to point out just how venal and disgustng he is) will, of course, be quietly ignored.
However, putting the rights and wrongs of the whole grubbly process asde, what to think of the two winning candidates? Personally, I'm pretty excited, even if, for reasons of pure proximity, disappointed that England didn't get the nod. The fact that, barring when the Euro Champs were a shadow of their current selves back in the 1960s, the USSR/Russia has never held a major football competition is a major anomaly that will now be addressed. I have every confidence that the infrastructure will be put in place and the tournament will go well. While distances will be an issue, I'm encouraged that the venues will be limited to western Russia and, most importantly, that groups will be organised geographically. It's a pet theory of mine that one of the factors behind player lethargy in recent WCs is the distances players have to travel as group games flit all over the place. A return to the model seen for example, in Italia 90 or Euro 96, where two grounds close to each other hosted single groups will be a positive factor, I believe.
Heat will obviously be an issue, both in Russia and in Qatar. But SA in winter was supposed to be more comfortable, and it was the worst WC so far (although altitude and the farce of the windcatcher ball might also have been factors). Even Germany in 2006 was baking hot at times and, with the exception of Australia in 2022, no venue offered an option where heat might not cause a potential issue. Hard as it might be to remember as we shiver today, but England in late June can be unpleasantly sticky too.
Qatar is even more intriguing than Russia (and it's not often one can say that on any subject) as a choice. Yes, it's tiny, yes, it's got hardly any people, yes, it's not got much of a footballing heritage. But it's rolling in oil and gas money, it's got a can-do attitude and it will get the infrastructure right. The stadia will be top notch, there will be sufficient accomodation either within Qatar itself or its near neighbours and I expect most people will be pleasantly surprised by the end of the tourney. Moreover, time zone wise it possessed huge advantages over its competitors for those watching from home in Europe and the Americas.
While I'm sure FIFA didn't take it into consideration, I also believe awarding the WC to an Arab nation is a positive step. Those who try to stir up trouble within the islamic community like to highlight every perceived slight the West makes as if there is some concerted "new crusade". This decision makes a nonsense of that thesis (as indeed does the largely underexposed Wikileak that virtually every one of Iran's nervous [islamic] neighbours is desperate for someone to take out their burgeoning nuclear capacity before it's too late), and hopefully at least one mainstream commentator is prepared to say that.
So, all-in-all, I'm fairly satisfied that, while the process stinks, FIFA's ultimate decisions represent pretty good news for the football fan.
Sunday 7 November 2010
Rowan Williams - meaning well no doubt, but dangerously wrong
First of all, welcome to the blog. That seems a little stupid to write, as I expect no-one will read this. But, nonetheless, if you do happen to stumble across it, welcome.
The government's plans to make the long-term unemployed do compulsory, unpaid manual work, being the main story of the day, is the subject of my frst post. Or, rather, the Archbishop of Canterbury's reaction to it.
It's no great surprise to see Labour figures come out and voice their concerns, as we've seen Harriet Harman and Douglas Alexander do to a certain extent. As an Opposition, it's pretty much what they're expected to do. Similarly, the TUC, as a left-leaning organisation, is unlikely to be waxing lyrical over a Tory proposal. However, if you look at what these figures are saying, it's very equivocal stuff, basically shifting the focus to an entirely different issue, that of creating work for those having just been made unemployed or actively seeking work, rather than attacking the plans to be set out by IDS later in the week. That's a reasonably good sign, in this blog's opinion, that Labour aren't unfavourable to the proposals either.
Which brings us to Dr Williams and his comments. In theory, there's not that much wrong with his logic if you apply it to those who's lack of work genuinely affects their mental wellbeing, if the idea od being forced into work then adds to this anxiety. But, realistically, how many of the long-term unemployed fall into this category? Compared to those who don't wish to work, either conciously or simply because the cycle of unemployment is so ingrained in the lifestyles of their social circle that the thought of work isn't really one that occurs in a concious sense, I'm willing to bet it's a pretty small fraction.
That's what makes Williams' input, in my opinion, so dangerous. It fails to consider the vast majority at which the government's plan (which I think is progressive, rather than draconian - the stick for the benefit of those at which it's being waved as well as for society as a whole and, eventually, the exchequer), but can be construed as a logical arguement as relating to a small minority. Thus it encourages those who oppose the plans on far less well-meaning, more partisan grounds to also have their tuppence worth. It gives the media the opportunity to run banner headlines on Williams' opposition. It threatens to destroy any potential consensus that these proposals are worth running with. Worst of all, as a church figure, Williams had no reason to make his comments. I'm sure he meant well. Unfortunately, as I see it, he failed in whatever lofty aim he had
The government's plans to make the long-term unemployed do compulsory, unpaid manual work, being the main story of the day, is the subject of my frst post. Or, rather, the Archbishop of Canterbury's reaction to it.
It's no great surprise to see Labour figures come out and voice their concerns, as we've seen Harriet Harman and Douglas Alexander do to a certain extent. As an Opposition, it's pretty much what they're expected to do. Similarly, the TUC, as a left-leaning organisation, is unlikely to be waxing lyrical over a Tory proposal. However, if you look at what these figures are saying, it's very equivocal stuff, basically shifting the focus to an entirely different issue, that of creating work for those having just been made unemployed or actively seeking work, rather than attacking the plans to be set out by IDS later in the week. That's a reasonably good sign, in this blog's opinion, that Labour aren't unfavourable to the proposals either.
Which brings us to Dr Williams and his comments. In theory, there's not that much wrong with his logic if you apply it to those who's lack of work genuinely affects their mental wellbeing, if the idea od being forced into work then adds to this anxiety. But, realistically, how many of the long-term unemployed fall into this category? Compared to those who don't wish to work, either conciously or simply because the cycle of unemployment is so ingrained in the lifestyles of their social circle that the thought of work isn't really one that occurs in a concious sense, I'm willing to bet it's a pretty small fraction.
That's what makes Williams' input, in my opinion, so dangerous. It fails to consider the vast majority at which the government's plan (which I think is progressive, rather than draconian - the stick for the benefit of those at which it's being waved as well as for society as a whole and, eventually, the exchequer), but can be construed as a logical arguement as relating to a small minority. Thus it encourages those who oppose the plans on far less well-meaning, more partisan grounds to also have their tuppence worth. It gives the media the opportunity to run banner headlines on Williams' opposition. It threatens to destroy any potential consensus that these proposals are worth running with. Worst of all, as a church figure, Williams had no reason to make his comments. I'm sure he meant well. Unfortunately, as I see it, he failed in whatever lofty aim he had
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)