Monday Moan 6

Just in time

I had been assuming I'd be able to write a piece about Andy Murray and the annual mascochistic festival that is Wimbledon.  Seventy-six years and counting ......

But things started to go wrong.  First Andy Murray failed to play his role of over-hyped loser and not only kept going and made it to the final, but played some great matches along the way.  Then we were distracted and a little confused by headlines about Marray becoming the first British winner for seventy-six years ................ had I missed this momentous laying of the Fred Perry ghost?  Turned out that I hadn't but that some imposter had tried to cash in on Andy's fame by winning the doubles under an almost identical name.

Then we had the final itself and Andy Murray again failed to meet our expectations of crumbling when it mattered. Instead, he won the first set and then produced some great tennis.  He lost, of course, but then it's probable that every other tennis player who has ever appeared at Wimbledon would also have lost to Roger Federer is that form.

But, thank goodness, Andy came through in the end with what can only be described as a major 'big girl's blouse' moment. Not for him the stiff upper lip. Not for him the quiet acknowledgment that he had simply been beaten by the better man.  True, he eventually managed to utter the right words of congratulations to Federer, but his inability to avoid blubbing like a baby was either heart-rending or cringeworthy, depending on your own emotional persuasions. 

Can't imagine that kind of behaviour would have been acceptable the last time a British man was in the Final in the 1930s, when men were men and nothing could detract from the masculinity of the players ............  if you could ignore their names, that is. 'Bunny' Austin?  How did he ever allow that one to catch on? 

I'm furious ...... I think

Diamond Bob's appearance at the Treasury Select Committee last week did not go quite the way he would have hoped. That's to say, nobody seemed impressed with what he had to say or with the man himself.

Even his admission that there had been 'reprehensible behaviour' cut very little ice. Sincerity was not the most plausible interpretation of his stance.

I like the approach of Chris Addison on last week's 'Mock the Week' - something along the lines of "we are all furious about this scandal, but nobody knows why".  Precisely.  Most of us have only a vague idea about the City, the financial system, the way everything works.  But we all know bankers and people who work in the City are bad. They are out for themselves, they make huge amounts of money at our expense, they maniuplate things to help them bolster their gains - and when we get an opportunity they should be put in the stocks and we should all be allowed to throw whatever we like at them (see also Robin van Persie, below). 

That's so much easier than having to work out why manipulating interest rates so that they stay low is a bad thing for the rest of us.

Toothless Committees?

If Diamond Bob was unimpressive then so was the Treasury Select Committee.  A series of statements rather than probing questioning, set piece and rehearsed 'anger' rather than insight and pursuit of the truth.

But then why should we have expected this Committee to be any different from the rest?  These Committees are either good at self-publicity or the media (particularly the BBC) has decided to bestow upon them an importance far greater than has previously been the case.  How often these days to we find out on the 'Today' programme that a Committee of MPs has reported that ...... blah, blah, blah.  We then get to hear from the Chair of whichever Committee it might be - these days quite often Margaret Hodge (Public Accounts) or John Whittingdale (Culture Media and Sport).  Do these people fill us with a quiet, calm satisfaction that they are able to get to the bottom of whatever issue it is that they choose to investigate and that their repots will contain penetrating and vital analysis and conclusions? 

Er, no, not really.  Their reports are mainly written by the clerks and 'special advisors' they employ. The oral evidence sessions usually manage to reveal not much more than that most MPs are reasonably competent at reading aloud questions written out for them to ask. The Chairs rarely say anything more than a superficial soundbite or two and never seem to be asked any difficult questions by their interviewers. And whilst Ministers do have to respond in due course, nothing much happens beyond the Committee getting on with its next damp squib of a report.

I love you - now where's the money?

Nobody should be surprised that Robin van Persie has decided to move on from Arsenal in pursuit of more money.  But he treats everyone with contempt when he says he is going, despite his love of the club and its fans, because he disagrees with the strategy of the Manager and Board.  Why do players (or is it their agents) come up with kind of rubbish all the time? 

Conventional 'wisdom' has it that Arsenal are not prepared to invest money in proven players because of the cost of doing so , and would rather find a few promising youngsters who might develop into stars.  According to the 'logic' of this 'wisdom' any club could buy success if it had a mind to do so and the owners of Arsenal are simply being pig-headed in not following this path.

Let's leave aside questions around the imminent introduction of new rules that will (ok, should) require clubs to become financially viable. Let's ignore awkward issues like only one team can win the League even if they all spend huge amounts of money. Let's park for now any discussion of whether van Persie is anything more than a reasonable player who has had his one season of everything falling into place. Let's put aside any questions about whether he should have shown more gratitude for the support given to him by all at the club through some serious personal problems and persistent injuries.  Let's not ask whether anybody seriously doubts the ambition of a club that has followed up improving its league position to third last season by strengthening its squad since then with the addition of two proven internationals. 

Instead, let's just ask whether this isn't really just about the money.  And whilst we are thinking about that, let's ask ourselves whether wages in excess of £200,000 a week are really necessary - even for inflated and ungrateful egos.

Monday Moan 5

Life in the UK

It appears that the current citizenship test is to be revised.  Not all immigrants have to sit this test, but perhaps it’s a good job that there is no requirement for existing citizens to have to pass the test in order to be allowed to stay here?  Go on, try the practice test and see how you get on.  It’s not as easy as you might think – I’ll bet you have to guess a lot of the answers.  Of course, it doesn’t help that some of the answers in the example test appear to be wrong (see Q19, for example).

It’s so hard to prepare for the test. Have a look at the guidance provided by the Home Office on ‘what you need to know’ and see what answers you would give to the following questions that appear on page 8:-

• What do estate agents do? 
• How and where is rubbish collected?
• What is buildings and household insurance?

Apparently, the correct answers are not:-

• Lie to buyers and sellers alike, in order to boost their own profits
• In most Government departments
• A complicated system to rip off citizens

The Greatest?

For a while yesterday I thought that Spain had taken note of the criticism of their style of play and decided to play football in a more positive way. Their two goals in the first half of the Euro final against Italy were the direct result of someone actually injecting some pace into their play and running towards the opposition's goal instead of indulging in their usual mesmerising passing in the middle of the pitch.

But despite the fawning comments on the tv after the game and in the press today, I do not believe that what I witnessed was a change of heart, still less a peerless display by the best team of all time, as many commentators now suggest. Let’s remember that for most of the second half yesterday the Italians had clearly given up any hope of scoring themselves, perhaps understandably since they were a man short for most of that time and already 2-0 down. During that time the pace of the game slowed to a walk and the Spanish showed precious little inclination to take any risks. Only the introduction of substitutes sparked them into life – allied to some woeful defending by desperately tired Italians. Cue an orgasmic reaction from pundits. But wait a minute, wasn’t this the same Spanish side that bored the world with its 0-0 draw with Portugal only a few days earlier, and had struggled to do anything much in its 4 previous games in the tournament?

That they are the most difficult team in the world to beat at the moment is unarguable, their ability to keep the ball for long periods is unmatched, and when they do rouse themselves to make an incisive attack they are a joy to watch. But the greatest of all time? Not yet, in my opinion. They do not yet have the capacity to excite that the really great teams display. They might develop this, of course, but for the moment much of their play is a kind of intellectual pursuit – about as exciting as watching a chess grandmaster toy with a novice.

Bob's a Banker

Bob Diamond – what a great name, by the way – continues to occupy the CEO post at Barclays. Why? The latest disaster for the bank seems to have made no impact on the man at all.

Remember, it was Diamond Bob who told the Treasury Select Committee that ‘there was a period of remorse and apology for banks but that period now needs to be over’. It was Diamond Bob who ran the investment side of Barclays before being appointed CEO of the whole company, just at the time Government seemed to want banks to separate their investment and retail arms.

So, instead of Diamond Bob doing the decent thing, Chairman Marcus Agius (who?) is to resign. Of course, as Chairman he has to take some responsibility and he is right that this has been a reputational disaster for Barclays. I just wonder if he ever thought of staying on and rescuing the reputation of the bank by showing Diamond Bob the door? I think that might have worked.

 


The Torch

I am struggling to see the excitement in watching someone jog or walk for 300 metres or so with a giant torch that may or may not be alight. I am also confused about why they let someone devise the route when they were so obviously drunk. How else do you explain the apparently haphazard journey of the torch to London? I was in Hertford at the weekend and noticed that the torch would be passing though this coming Saturday. I then went a few miles along the road to Welwyn Garden City and saw that the torch would be there on Sunday. Now, it would take someone perhaps an hour to walk between these two places. Ah, I thought, they must be stopping overnight in Hertford and then setting off again the next day.


Wrong. I checked the route and discovered that rather than the obvious straight road from one place to the other, the torch will travel from Hertford via Bishop’s Stortford, Bury St Edmunds, Cambridge, St Ives, Bedford and Stevenage before ending up three miles down the road in Welwyn.


Perhaps the new citizenship test should require you to know the best way to go from Hertford to Welwyn?