Like any child's death, the death of Ivan Cameron this week must have hit his family hard, but Ivan's death has also affected politics in a very poignant fashion.
Often Gordon Brown and David Cameron are spitting venom at each other over the dispatch box, but this week we witnessed a bond between the two men. Both leaders have now lost a child and so the passing of Ivan affected politics at the very highest level.
Cameron understandably missed Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday, but as an act of respect PMQs were cancelled all together and replaced by messages of condolence. These came from William Hague, Vince Cable (standing in for Nick Clegg) and of course the Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Too often politicians are portrayed as faceless figures to which blame can be ascribed to, but here we saw a very emotional and human side to politics. All politicians' views will have been shaped by their life experiences, and David Cameron is no different.
I'm sure that Cameron would be the first to admit that he had a charmed upbringing, but looking after a disabled child must have shaped his outlook on life and indeed politics. For instance his commitment to the NHS may well have been shaped by his son's dependence on the institution and the amount of time that his family will have spent in Hospitals.
It is remarkable that the death of a six year old boy has had such a seismic effect on the British public, particularly against the current econmonic backdrop, but this was such a tragic event that for once people felt sorry for a politician. This is a very rare event.
Politicians are often seen as mercenary figures obsessed by power, but here is a man whose family clearly comes first. No-one is trying to say that David Cameron is perfect, indeed he is clearly not, but this week people were able to identify with him much more than they were able to before. Indeed the same could be said for Gordon Brown who came out of this week with tremendous dignity.
What happened this week served to highlight the mutual respect that politicians have for each other, but also the human side of politics. Sometimes things need to looked at from a different perspective and the tragic death of Ivan Cameron was not in vain. His short life had an enormous effect on the man who is likely to be Britain's next Prime Minister, but Ivan has also captured the nations hearts in a way that no politician ever could.
Saturday 28 February 2009
Sunday 15 February 2009
Beckham fever
The national and international media has been full of David Beckham this week. Will he or won't he stay at AC Milan? The debate rages on, but it is clear that if he wants to play in next year's world cup in South Africa, Beckham needs regular football played at the highest level. He will not get this at LA Galaxy, so a move may be on the cards.
When 'Golden Balls' signed for LA Galaxy back in 2007, he tried to persuade the world media that he was not doing it for the money (despite signing a £128 million contract), and rather that he wanted to further the game in the US and establish the league as world brand. This would be David Beckham's legacy to football, and the perfect place to finish off a fine career. Where Pele and George Best had failed, Beckham would succeed and the land of the free would be converted to 'Soccer' lovers.
Of course at the time, it looked like Beckham's England career was well and truly over, with Steve Mclaren banishing the ex-Manchester United player from his squad. This was a massive blow for the former Captain, and the US deal appeared to be make sense against this backdrop. He had also been dropped from the Real Madrid side of course, as the club reacted against his decision to join the Galaxy. However, Beckham forced his way back into the Real side and earned the respect of his then club-boss Fabio Capello, by helping the team to the La Liga title.
Fast forward to 2009, and Beckham is very much part of the Capello-led England set-up, and is on-loan to Italian giants AC Milan. LA Galaxy do not want to lose their man but he has stated his desire to remain at the San Siro on a permanent basis, and so have Milan. Most England fans will hope that he gets his wish. At Milan Beckham has been rejuvanated with his desire to play on for England undiminished. Even at 33, he is still one of England's best players, even if he does not play all of the 90 minutes, and the team may need his experience in South Africa.
The game against Spain saw Beckham earn his 108th cap, equalling Sir Bobby Moore's record as an outfield player. It is unfair to compare the two, but few people can argue about Beckham's passion when playing for his country. This is a rare thing these days, with money in football seemingly by-passing the ideas of patriotism and loyalty. Many players retire earlier from international football than they used to, in order to prolong their club careers. Indeed, Jamie Carragher retired at just 29 allegedly fed up with not being put in the starting line-up often enough.
Some players play better for their country than their club and some do not. Michael Owen and David Beckham did/do, whereas the likes of Carragher, and arguably Steven Gerrard have failed to match their club form when in an England jersey. A cynic could argue that this is all to do with money, but surely modern players are not this shallow? What is certain is that players who do perform well for their countries should be cherished and appreciated. Beckham falls into this category.
The England team that came out of the late 1990s were said to be of the 'Golden Generation', but more often that not they came up short when it mattered. One of the few survivors of this generation still has something to give and perhaps to prove, and wouldn't it be fitting to see him help England to their first ever tournament win since 1966? Fanciful perhaps, particularly considering the two nil loss to a superior Spanish side on Wednesday, but we can all dream.
I can still hear 'Three Lions' being sung at Euro 96, but could it possibly be repackaged for a third time? "DB on the ball, Golden Balls still gleaming!" Just an idea for the lyrics, (if you're reading this Baddiel and Skinner).
When 'Golden Balls' signed for LA Galaxy back in 2007, he tried to persuade the world media that he was not doing it for the money (despite signing a £128 million contract), and rather that he wanted to further the game in the US and establish the league as world brand. This would be David Beckham's legacy to football, and the perfect place to finish off a fine career. Where Pele and George Best had failed, Beckham would succeed and the land of the free would be converted to 'Soccer' lovers.
Of course at the time, it looked like Beckham's England career was well and truly over, with Steve Mclaren banishing the ex-Manchester United player from his squad. This was a massive blow for the former Captain, and the US deal appeared to be make sense against this backdrop. He had also been dropped from the Real Madrid side of course, as the club reacted against his decision to join the Galaxy. However, Beckham forced his way back into the Real side and earned the respect of his then club-boss Fabio Capello, by helping the team to the La Liga title.
Fast forward to 2009, and Beckham is very much part of the Capello-led England set-up, and is on-loan to Italian giants AC Milan. LA Galaxy do not want to lose their man but he has stated his desire to remain at the San Siro on a permanent basis, and so have Milan. Most England fans will hope that he gets his wish. At Milan Beckham has been rejuvanated with his desire to play on for England undiminished. Even at 33, he is still one of England's best players, even if he does not play all of the 90 minutes, and the team may need his experience in South Africa.
The game against Spain saw Beckham earn his 108th cap, equalling Sir Bobby Moore's record as an outfield player. It is unfair to compare the two, but few people can argue about Beckham's passion when playing for his country. This is a rare thing these days, with money in football seemingly by-passing the ideas of patriotism and loyalty. Many players retire earlier from international football than they used to, in order to prolong their club careers. Indeed, Jamie Carragher retired at just 29 allegedly fed up with not being put in the starting line-up often enough.
Some players play better for their country than their club and some do not. Michael Owen and David Beckham did/do, whereas the likes of Carragher, and arguably Steven Gerrard have failed to match their club form when in an England jersey. A cynic could argue that this is all to do with money, but surely modern players are not this shallow? What is certain is that players who do perform well for their countries should be cherished and appreciated. Beckham falls into this category.
The England team that came out of the late 1990s were said to be of the 'Golden Generation', but more often that not they came up short when it mattered. One of the few survivors of this generation still has something to give and perhaps to prove, and wouldn't it be fitting to see him help England to their first ever tournament win since 1966? Fanciful perhaps, particularly considering the two nil loss to a superior Spanish side on Wednesday, but we can all dream.
I can still hear 'Three Lions' being sung at Euro 96, but could it possibly be repackaged for a third time? "DB on the ball, Golden Balls still gleaming!" Just an idea for the lyrics, (if you're reading this Baddiel and Skinner).
Wednesday 11 February 2009
The global recession conundrum
Recently we have been bombarded with bad news on the world economy, but are things really as bad as we are being told?
No-one really knows, and I believe that this is part of the problem. People look towards politicians, commentators and writers to give us answers to problems, but this is different. It is clear that nobody has the answers to solve the recession conundrum, and this is where the real problem lies.
One of the biggest problems is confidence, and this goes to the heart of the banking system. On a personal level, you would not let a friend borrow money if he/she could not pay it back. In the past, money was lent to people that realistically had no chance of paying it back. The sub-prime mortgage market in the US is a good example of this, and is often the one event that people trace this whole crisis back to. Whereas risk used to be a commodity that was sold off globally, financial institutions are no longer willing to take these risks, and as a result the wheels of credit have ceased up. What is interesting about this recession, is that it need not have happened if lending had been conducted responsibly. However, as financial capitals such as London became richer and richer people lost sight of the simple principles of lending.
The result of these decreased risk margins, is that many businesses are going to the wall, as they no longer have access to the levels of credit that they had become accustomed to. In a way, these calamitous circumstances which will undoubtedly end in many job losses are a necessary evil. The former Chancellor Norman Lamont was lambasted for saying that unemployment was a price worth paying, back in 1991, and of course this can not be agreed with. However, it is inevitable that this will happen, as non-profitable businesses close down, and indeed this needs to happen in order to put the economy back on its feet. Capitalism works because it rights itself by shedding the non-functional weaker parts of the economy. Take Woolworths for example in the UK. This was a failing business that needed to close. Keeping it open by bailing it out would not have done anyone any favours. The workforce may have stayed in place, what at what price? Without boom and bust, Capitalism would not work, and Gordon Brown was foolish to claim he had eradicated it in the year 2000.
In the US, the car business is a classic example. Here, an out-dated business model ran into trouble and had to be bailed out at huge cost to the taxpayer. The problem however, much like British Leyland in the 1970s, is that the consumer does not want the cars that are being manufactured. The bail out was implemented in order to save jobs, but in the longer term these jobs may have to go anyway. This may have bought the President some time, but it could be too late for this particular industry, and it will be the taxpayer that will foot the bill for their failings.
Another problem though, is that markets are now increasingly global. In the case of the UK, the government can do little to improve the economic situation if the US situation does not improve. Gordon Brown has taken the risky step of borrowing large amounts of money to jump-start the economy, but there are little signs of things improving on any noticeable level. The Prime Minister said today at Prime Minister's Questions that British banks were now beginning to lend more, but without the presence of American money, there is a gaping hole in the market.
If the world economy is to improve, then a world solution needs to be reached. Domestic policies can help but these must be implemented without encouraging protectionism. Otherwise this recession could be far deeper than it needs to be and far harder to get out of.
No-one really knows, and I believe that this is part of the problem. People look towards politicians, commentators and writers to give us answers to problems, but this is different. It is clear that nobody has the answers to solve the recession conundrum, and this is where the real problem lies.
One of the biggest problems is confidence, and this goes to the heart of the banking system. On a personal level, you would not let a friend borrow money if he/she could not pay it back. In the past, money was lent to people that realistically had no chance of paying it back. The sub-prime mortgage market in the US is a good example of this, and is often the one event that people trace this whole crisis back to. Whereas risk used to be a commodity that was sold off globally, financial institutions are no longer willing to take these risks, and as a result the wheels of credit have ceased up. What is interesting about this recession, is that it need not have happened if lending had been conducted responsibly. However, as financial capitals such as London became richer and richer people lost sight of the simple principles of lending.
The result of these decreased risk margins, is that many businesses are going to the wall, as they no longer have access to the levels of credit that they had become accustomed to. In a way, these calamitous circumstances which will undoubtedly end in many job losses are a necessary evil. The former Chancellor Norman Lamont was lambasted for saying that unemployment was a price worth paying, back in 1991, and of course this can not be agreed with. However, it is inevitable that this will happen, as non-profitable businesses close down, and indeed this needs to happen in order to put the economy back on its feet. Capitalism works because it rights itself by shedding the non-functional weaker parts of the economy. Take Woolworths for example in the UK. This was a failing business that needed to close. Keeping it open by bailing it out would not have done anyone any favours. The workforce may have stayed in place, what at what price? Without boom and bust, Capitalism would not work, and Gordon Brown was foolish to claim he had eradicated it in the year 2000.
In the US, the car business is a classic example. Here, an out-dated business model ran into trouble and had to be bailed out at huge cost to the taxpayer. The problem however, much like British Leyland in the 1970s, is that the consumer does not want the cars that are being manufactured. The bail out was implemented in order to save jobs, but in the longer term these jobs may have to go anyway. This may have bought the President some time, but it could be too late for this particular industry, and it will be the taxpayer that will foot the bill for their failings.
Another problem though, is that markets are now increasingly global. In the case of the UK, the government can do little to improve the economic situation if the US situation does not improve. Gordon Brown has taken the risky step of borrowing large amounts of money to jump-start the economy, but there are little signs of things improving on any noticeable level. The Prime Minister said today at Prime Minister's Questions that British banks were now beginning to lend more, but without the presence of American money, there is a gaping hole in the market.
If the world economy is to improve, then a world solution needs to be reached. Domestic policies can help but these must be implemented without encouraging protectionism. Otherwise this recession could be far deeper than it needs to be and far harder to get out of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
