Delhi's Commonwealth Games rose to the challenge

This year's Commonwealth Games began under a cloud. Collapsing bridges and unfinished athletes' accommodation generated a feeling of pessimism around Delhi, and many people expected the competition to be called off.

Two weeks later all of these predictions of failure have proved unfounded. Last night the curtain came down on one of the most successful Commonwealth Games for years.

It is true that some top level athletes decided to stay away from the games, but despite this the competition has been fierce and the spectacle relatively unaffected.

One of the positives that came from the star names staying away was that others were allowed to come to the fore. For example, England's Louise Hazel won an excellent gold medal in the heptathlon, in an event that would likely have been dominated by her more illustrious compatriot Jessica Ennis.

If the Commonwealths now serve to develop fresh talent then this is a big reason to champion them as a competition.

This lack of top draw performers was not the case in the pool. Here the home nations dominated, with the likes of Liam Tancock, Rebecca Adlington and Fran Halsall coming home with an array of medals.

Despite this optimism there were some low points. The three failed drug tests by Nigerian athletes are extremely regrettable, and once again reinforces the stereotype of drug-cheats within athletics.

This though, is a problem for athletics across the board and the games in Delhi have not thankfully, been overshadowed by these cheats.

On a less damning note many athletes suffered with stomach trouble, but it would have been a miracle had no-one experienced the famous 'Delhi Belly'. This may be have been unfortunate for the athletes that fell ill but thankfully it did not appear to affect performances too much.

As a side note, I am not sure if anyone caught the netball final between New Zealand and Australia. This summed up multi-event competition at its finest; two teams giving it everything right until the end. New Zealand triumphed 66-64 after extra time, and it was great to watch.

If relatively minor sports such as netball can excite crowds then just imagine what the atmosphere could be like in London in two years time, if Great Britain's Jessica Ennis triumphs as Heptathlete champion.

For a competition that was apparently doomed to fail, Delhi has produced an excellent spectacle. The Commonwealth Games now needs to be given more support to help it remain relevant. I for one am looking forward to Glasgow's turn in 2014.

Armistice Day has greater resonance than ever

Yesterday's Armistice Day was one of the most important in recent years.

At a time when British soldiers appear to be making little progress in Afghanistan and yet continue to lose their lives on a regular basis, yesterday served as a day of reflection for many.

The First World War was of course on a completely different scale to the wars we see today, and the loss of life was horrendous in comparison; but at the time this was justified by saying that it was 'the war to end all wars'.

War breeds war

The reality was of course that 'the Great War' did not end all wars, and it was only twenty one years later that the second world war began. If anything the First World War only served to create more favourable conditions for more wars.

War is never an ideal solution and rarely does it achieve an ideal result. The reality of war is that many people will die, both civilian and military in the pursuit of victory and there is little that can be done to prevent this.

The crucial point though, is whether or not the sacrifices made during wars are justified. If your relative has died for a good cause it will of course be devastating, but at the same time one may feel a sense of pride in what they stood for.

If however your relative dies in a futile war, then their death could be seen as a waste. This is the dilemma that politicians and soldiers' relatives have to mull over on a daily basis.

Dilemma

Is the war in Afghanistan worth losing British soldiers for? The Prime Minister maintains that we are fighting in Afghanistan to maintain Britain's security from terrorist attacks, and that if we were not there we would be under serious threat.

This may well be true and not many people are able to look at the intelligence reports to be able to agree or disagree with this statement. Public opinion though appears to be turning away from supporting the war and this is dangerous for Gordon Brown.

The recent public row with the mother of dead service-man Jamie Janes did not help Mr. Brown's cause and while the criticism of the Prime Minister in this instance was mostly unjustified; it shows how impatient people are becoming with the war.

The Prime Minister should have taken more time to draft his letter to Mrs. Janes but portaying him as insensitive for making spelling mistakes was a bit of a cheap shot from The Sun.

Brown said on Monday "I have at all times acted in good faith seeking to do the right thing. I do not think anyone will believe that I write letters with any intent to cause offence."

Need for debate

This argument though clouds the real issue of whether or not is time to start bringing home the troops and unless things start to improve quickly expect to see the issue debated more frequently in parliament.

There is a danger however; that if this does happen it could be seen as showing a loss of support for our soldiers but this is no reason not to have the debate.

The mission objective in Afghanistan has become muddled and by not having a proper debate on what we are trying to achieve there, could mean that lives will be lost when they need not have been.

Yesterday's Armistice Day service at Westminster Abbey included the words of Wilfred Owen the First World War poet, and much of his poetry still resonates today.

For instance 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria more'. These words have been repeated over and over, but today they have lost none of their meaning and perhaps for some, none of their cynicism.

The situation in Afghanistan does not appear to be improving and on a day when the US ambassador in Kabul has allegedly advised the US President not to commit thousands more troops to the war-zone, the future of the conflict looks uncertain.

It may be difficult to redefine the mission but for the brave troops, their families and the public mood, it is essential that this happens soon.

Sacking the Government's Chief Drug Adviser Stinks

On Friday Professor David Nutt was sacked from his post as top drug adviser to the British government.

Earlier that week Nutt had criticised the government's decison to upgrade Cannabis from class C to B. He also said ministers had devalued and distorted evidence and said drugs classification was being politicised.

The response of the the Home Secretary Alan Johnson, was to sack Professor Nutt, saying he had "lost confidence" in his advice.

Science devalued

Nutt responded by describing his sacking as a "serious challenge to the value of science in relation to the government".

This is really the serious issue here. If a scientist is asked to look at an issue as important as drug use then wouldn't we want him to be open and honest about his views?

This was clearly not the view taken by ministers and in their view Nutt's views clashed too much with their policies on the subject.

Professor Nutt said of the government: "We can help them. We can give them very good advice, and it would be much more simpler if they took that advice rather than getting tangled up in other sorts of messages which frankly really do confuse the public."

He was referring to the upgrading of Cannabis to class B, a move that to many people seems fairly pointless. Indeed, according to the scientific evidence presented by Nutt, smoking cannabis creates only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.

Alcohol and Cigarettes

He also said that separating alcohol and cigarettes from other drugs such as LSD, Ecstasy and Cannabis was "artificial". A fair point considering the amount of damage that alcohol and cigarettes are well-known to cause.

Of course one could also argue that to work as an effective adviser, coming out in public with views clearly opposed to the government's own, is a counter-productive exercise.

By openly criticising policy, Nutt was always walking a tight-rope in terms of keeping his job. However, should this really have been the case?

If ministers are only surrounded by 'yes men' then creating real, sensible change in policy and attitudes will never come about.

Impartial voice

Presumably Nutt was appointed to give an impartial view about drug use, so why then when he decides to offer it is he removed from his post?

It is true that ministers do not have to act on advice, but in a democratic society respected figures such as Professor Nutt should be able to speak freely without being censored.

Perhaps speaking publicly was the last resort for Nutt, and he felt he had no other option other than to make his views public. At least now by doing this we are able to have a sensible debate about drug use.

Drugs destroy people's lives. If Alan Johnson and his predecessor Jacqui Smith are experts on the subject then fine but if not, then effective and outspoken advisers are desperately needed.

The decision to sack Professor Nutt from his post is yet another disappointing move from this ailing government. Let's hope his dismissal does not signal the end of the debate.

What have we learnt from the Party Conferences?

At the end of the party conference season we have now heard all three parties' visions for the future, but have we actually learnt anything new?

Clegg the idealist

The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg did a good impression of someone who wants to be Prime Minister and to be fair his party did present some good ideas.

The problem of course is that Clegg will never be able to get the wider British public to listen to him. The irony is that if they did listen a lot of people would probably agree with his sentiments.

For example, in his conference speech he said:"I want to live in a country where prejudice, insularity and fear are conquered by the great British traditions of tolerance, pluralism and justice.

Where political life is not a Westminster village freak show, but open, accessible and helpful in people's everyday lives."

Fair enough. The problem is achieving all of this and it is very easy to make grand pledges when you know there is no pressure on actually having to deliver on them.

The future's Brown?

So if the Lib Dems can not be taken seriously, can Labour? The answer appears to be just about, but with Gordon Brown in charge they still look a doomed party, destined to return to opposition.

It is true that Brown gave a good speech at Labour's conference (by his standards) but many Labour activists still came away with lingering doubts about their chances of winning the next election.

The Prime Minister's biggest flaw remains his inability to effectively communicate with the public, and even his articulate wife's introduction could not change this.

Sarah Brown introduced Gordon as "my hero" and as the tired looking Scotsman sauntered up to the lectern, it is fair to say that he did not look particularly heroic.

Brown quite simply looks exhausted at the moment, no surprise given his busy workload but sadly today impressions are all-important and Brown looks a beaten man.

In terms of his speech, the stand out mentions include the referendum promise on electoral reform, something that will have cheered many Labour MPs, putting teenage mothers in a "network of supervised homes" and his pledges on social care.

The teenage mothers supervision idea is supposed to give young mothers help in bringing up their children but it did sound strange when it was announced.

If you were a Conservative you could use it as an example of too much government interference in our daily lives, but although a little crude it may have some merit in theory.

The best speech of the conference however, was made by Peter Mandelson, the come-back king. Mandelson declared the election "up for grabs" but admitted that Labour would be underdogs going into it. A fair assessment perhaps, but it will be an uphill struggle for Labour.

Cameron gets personal

The final round of conferences was hosted by the Conservatives and it is clear why they are favourites for the next election. Whether or not you like David Cameron he is definitely the most charismatic of the three leaders.

Cameron's speech itself was light on policy, but what it did contain was a glimpse into the man himself. One of the main criticisms of Cameron is that he is too slick and people do not trust him because of this.

The biggest challenge then for Cameron is to present to voters a man who is capable of being Prime Minister and during the conference he went some way towards doing this.

One of his key messages was that government needs to decrease in size, and for a country trying to make savings this should be an appealing idea. At the heart of his speech though were his attempts to try and portray what kind of man he is.

Significantly he spoke of the death of his son Ivan earlier this year which he said had made him think about whether or not he wanted to carry on as leader. One would have to be very callous to doubt the truth of these words.

Cameron left the tough policy announcements to George Osborne and the cuts he announced were a big risk.

For example, 25% off the defence budget and a one-off pay freeze in 2011 for all public sector workers, (excluding frontline forces and those earning less than £18,000) are definitely not policies you would describe as vote winners.

However by announcing cuts now, the Tories are trying to show that they are up-front about what they will do in government. Osborne used the phrase "we're all in this together" and they have certainly taken a gamble by announcing cuts as savage as this.

One of the biggest problems facing Cameron is his past. He and his shadow-chancellor George Osborne both went to Eton and this is a fact that unsettles many voters.

If two Etonians are at the top of Government in 2010, then what does this say about this country's progress in terms of social mobility?

To digress for a moment, my highlight of the Tory conference has to be when William Hague introduced the Conservative MPs onto the stage.

It looked like a school prize day when all of the clever people are grouped together in a bizarre freakish line-up. This was unsettling enough, but when Bono appeared on screen things got even stranger. Is there nothing this man won't do? A rare comedy moment in a month of tedium.

Anyway, the Tories may well win the next election but unlike New Labour in 1997 there is not as yet a healthy enthusiasm for them as a fresh party with new ideas. If they want to make sure of a big majority in the election this has to change.

A hung parliament would be a bad result for everyone. A country in crisis needs a strong government, and Cameron has a tough challenge ahead of him to try and convince the British public that his party offers real change.

Brown will not go down without a fight, but in all honesty the next election looks like it will go to the Conservatives. By what margin though remains to be seen and complacency could be Cameron's biggest weakness.

What long term effects will the MPs' expenses scandal have?

England's Ashes win gives Test Cricket a healthy future

England's 2-1 win over Australia in the 2009 Ashes was an achievment that not too many cricket observers would have predicted at the start of the summer.

England may have beaten the West Indies in May but the West Indies were a lack-lustre outfit led by Chris Gayle, a man who had openly said that he 'wouldn't be so sad if test cricket died out'.

Gayle is a huge fan of Twenty20 cricket and the riches and excitement that the game offers were brilliantly showcased this year in the IPL in South Africa. As a big-hitting batsman Gayle's game suits Twenty20 perfectly, so it is no surprise that he has taken to it.

In truth Gayle looked like someone who would rather have missed the plane than played a test series in England at the beginning of May.

To be fair to him, the weather was bad, the crowds were poor and for opponents of Test cricket's continuation, the series against the West Indies was the signal that the end was nigh for the five day format.

Test Cricket doomed?

Even Kevin Pietersen, the former England Captain appeared unsure that Test Cricket had a long term future. In an interview with The Times he said: "I’d be a fool to tell you now that Test cricket will be here in 10 years’ time because I don’t know now."

So a pretty bleak outlook then. Not so if we look at the evidence from this year's Ashes series. Tickets were in huge demand for each test, the series was extremely competitive and once again the series captivated the media and the nation.

Twenty20 is definitely an exciting sport to watch, but it just does not have the same twists and turns that Test Cricket provides. A five match series of five day games is really a different sport to Twenty20, and while One day cricket may well suffer a decline, the future of test cricket now looks healthy.

Competition is paramount

The Ashes became boring for many cricket fans over the years, quite simply because of Australia's dominance. Since 2005 we have seen England win back the urn for the first time in 18 years, only to then lose it again 5-0 in Australia, and then reclaim it again in 2009.

Competition is key to any sport's enduring popularity, and whether you are English (or Welsh for that matter) or Australian I am sure you would agree that the series' competitiveness is very important to its future.

The IPL has flooded the the world of Twenty20 with cash, and some players may well chose to end their test careers early to take advantage of these riches; but one only has to look at the reaction of the England team to see what winning the Ashes means to them.

Money is a fact of life in professional sport these days, but even in the over-spending, bloated world of Premiership football, I would guess that most of the players would trade a year's salary for back to back league titles.

New audience for cricket

One of the arguments against Test Cricket continuing is that spectators are more interested in the shorter form of the game, and Twenty20 has without doubt introduced cricket to people who had little interest in the sport before.

This is a good thing, but for fans of Test Cricket Twenty20 will never be able to equal the thrills, spills and tactics that a test match brings. In football terms, Twenty20 is a bit like a penalty shoot out compared to the World Cup tournament of Test Cricket.

For any English or Australian cricketer, winning the Ashes will be the pinnacle of their careers, and on the evidence of this series it looks like it will continue to be the case for many years to come.

As long as things stay this way the crowds will surely follow, and Test Cricket will continue to flourish as it always has. Long live Test Cricket!

Let's have a proper debate about the NHS

Conservative MEP Dan Hannan, has caused a political storm by openly criticising the NHS on America's Fox News.

Hannan called the NHS a "60-year mistake" and labelled it as the result of something planned during the war. He then moved onto the US saying:

"I find it incredible that a free people living in a country dedicated and founded in the cause of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about adopting such a system in peacetime and massively expanding the role of the state when there's no need."

Political gamesmanship

David Cameron the Conservative leader dismissed Hannan as 'eccentric' and made it clear that these views were not reflected in Tory policy. He then added that "the Conservative Party stands four square behind the NHS."

Andy Burnham the Health Secretary went further calling Hannan 'unpatriotic', but then also adding: "What has happened within the last 48 hours is what Cameron has feared most because it lays bare the Tories' deep ambivalence towards the NHS."

This does seem a little cheap, seeing as most people admit that Cameron is committed to the NHS. Particularly considering that Cameron's own family has benefitted greatly from NHS services, when his late son Ivan was cared for.

Labour understandably have used this occasion to launch an attack on the Tories, but saying that Conservative policy is anti-NHS is perhaps political gamesmanship gone too far.

Opening up debate

Can you ever imagine a British politician on either front-bench speaking their mind quite like Hannan has? Whether or not you agree with him, what is certain is that he has opened up a debate on the future of the NHS, something that is long overdue.

The NHS is without doubt a wonderful national institution, but one that is fatally flawed. A National Health Service that is free at the point of delivery and serves everyone is a terrific ideal, but is sadly one that will always struggle to be fulfilled.

There has been much talk of NICE over the past few days, the independent body that approves treatments and medicines for use on the NHS. This is of course done on the basis of need but mostly on cost, just as any government department makes its budget choices.

Investment

This then inevitably means that some patients will miss out on their treatment of choice, because it is just too expensive sometimes to pay for them. As time has moved on, treatments and technologies have become more and more expensive, so this problem will not go away.

Labour have poured unprecedented amounts of money into the NHS, and they have made some progress, but GPs now work less hours than they used to and are paid more than ever. Surely this is an indication that not everything in the garden is rosy.

Outdated model

Political blogger Iain Dale gives his take as to why the NHS is constantly struggling to meet people's needs:

"It is because we are trying to make a 1940s healthcare system cope with the demands of a 21st century society. We cling to the idea that healthcare is free at the point of delivery, while conveniently ignoring the truth that in many cases it isn't, and it never can be. And yet at the same time we prevent those who are happy to pay for their care from doing so without then being banned from having NHS treatment. Until we come to terms with the fact that a 1940s structure can never service 21st century needs, we're not going to get anywhere." (read the full blog post here).

This really is the fundamental problem. How can we possibly expect the NHS to serve everyone equally when its model is outdated? Politicians need to start debating this issue, and crucially without playing party politics with it.

The NHS is not a political football to be kicked around by each party, and anyone who has had anything to do with it should have massive respect for what it, as an institution represents.

Problems lie ahead

In my personal experience, the staff in NHS hospitals are excellent, but the problem is that there are just not enough of them. This needs to change quickly, because as our population gets older and fatter the NHS will be more stretched than ever.

Dan Hannan may well be a political maverick that not many people agree with, but sometimes it takes eccentric individuals to stand up and speak their mind, in order to open up debates that no-one really wants to have. The NHS does its best, but it could be so much better.

So if we are going to make changes let's start making them now before things get even worse, because if we wait too long the NHS could cease to exist out of necessity, and nobody really wants that.



(You can watch the Dan Hannan Fox interview here)