Tomorrow will see the draw for next year's World Cup Finals. For all the negative coverage we hear about Brazil's ability to deliver on building it's World Cup Stadia, Brazil is the world's most illustrious football nation. Therefore the idea of a Brazillian World Cup is not particularly controversial on footballing grounds. Now let's fast forward eight years to 2022. This tournament will see a host nation with a very different pedigree- Qatar. Whereas Brazil have qualified for every World Cup to date (not to mention being the five times World Champions), Qatar have never even qualified for a World Cup before. Let's also not forget that Qatar won the bid on the basis of a summer World Cup. Now that is apparently not going to happen!
For much of the criticism FIFA President Sepp Blatter has correctly endured, the idea of moving the World Cups around the continents was with some merit against a backdrop of evidence suggesting there were football powers emerging from both Africa and Asia. For me, this Qatar episode has I'm afraid blown FIFA's whole credibility up in smoke. For many people in the West, the idea of taking the World Cup to the Middle East was always going to be contentious on Human Rights grounds. But whilst nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran may both also carry much political baggage, they at least had some credibility of having appeared at previous World Cups.
We do from time to time hear of the need to get rid of Mr Blatter from some sections of the game. To make sure this farce is never to be experienced by world football ever again, getting rid of this ridiculous specimen of a man is just the tip of the iceberg. We must consider the reform of the World Cup itself to make it fit for purpose once again. Do we even need to have a World Cup bidding process? I have come to the view that we don't necessarily need this process of bidding for the right to hold the greatest football show on earth; a process could be introduced instead to reward success on the pitch as the way forward.
A very simple way of rewarding success on the pitch would be to allow the World Cup winner the honour of staging the next tournament. Some critics would say Brazil would then have a platform for complete domination. I would on balance share that concern. One dimension of what enables the World Cup to capture the global imagination is the cultural variation of a different host nation. For that reason I would not on balance favour a system of simply allowing the World Cup winner to continuously win the right to host a World Cup per se, especially if we have a cycle of a dominant winning nation. I am not sure there would be the same level of global captivation if there was a cycle of nearly every World Cup being staged in Brazil or Germany for instance.
That said, going down that route would be better than the status quo which has proven to allow a football minnow to be awarded the honour of hosting the World Cup in what many people believe to be very dubious circumstances. It should also be pointed out that the last time in which Brazil hosted the tournament in 1950, it was their near neighbours from Uruguay who came out on top (from a most unusual tournament format which saw the last four play in a final group rather than a knockout format). However, Brazil's greatest teams which have produced the likes of Pele, Carlos Alberto, Zico, Socrates, Ronaldo etc have emerged of course in the years since they hosted the 1950 tournament.
I would personally favour a system of rewarding football success by first of all allowing the World Cup Winner the honour of being awarded the right to host the next World Cup, provided they have not hosted the event previously over a twenty year period. The only other factors which could see a World Cup Winner not host the subsequent tournament are political instability, lack of suitable stadia, or the country in question simply deciding they do not wish to host the tournament. Should a World Cup Winner not meet the criteria to host a subsequent tournament, I would propose to look first at the World Cup Runners-Up, then the Semi-Finalists, and then the Quarter-Finalists etc until a country is decided upon who has not been a host over the recent tournaments (and of course who is not seen as a pariah politically).
When it comes to choosing between the two semi-finalists or two or more quarter-finalists, the deciding factor could be a points table based on the teams' performances in that tournament. In addition to the usual one point for a draw and three points for a win as in the group stage, knockout matches could merely reflect the result after ninety minutes for the purpose of such a performance table. In an unlikely event that two teams who reach the same stage of a World Cup share an identical points and goal difference record, the two nations could have their World Cup record from the previous World Cup campaign (from four years ago) used as a deciding factor instead.
I recognise that some people may read this post and come to the conclusion that I am proposing a system that will stifle the ambition of some less illustrious footballing nations. I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT! I WILL GIVE FOUR REASONS WHY. First of all, this system would mean a big hitter like Brazil, Germany, or Italy (like any other nation) can only host the World Cup once every twenty years at best. Secondly, every World Cup since 1986 has seen an African Nation reach the knockout stages; although there is little doubt that Africa can perform better if off the field matters can be rooted out. Thirdly, Mexico (from the CONCACAF Confederation) regularly make the World Cup knockout stages. Fourthly, Asian Football has had plenty of highs in recent World Cup history: Australia, Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea have all reached the knockout stages at various stages over the last twenty years. NOW THIS IS THE MAIN POINT: IT WOULD BLOCK A NATION WITH NO WORLD CUP PEDIGREE FROM EVER STAGING A WORLD CUP EVER AGAIN!
Thursday, 5 December 2013
Sunday, 1 December 2013
Discovering the treasure that is Dovedale
The Peak District National Park is Britain's oldest National Park. Although most of the Peak District's area falls within the County of Derbyshire, five other counties also fall within the Peak District National Park's boundaries. Living in the North West of England, I have made the odd foray from time to time into the Peak District down the years. However, I only really concentrated such rare forays around the Buxton and High Peak area, due to it's proximity to the North West. That changed in 2010 when my wife and I were travelling back from my brother's wedding in Northampton. We decided on a night's camping on the way home, and had planned to look for a campsite in the Buxton area. It was just after we drove through Ashbourne that we found a campsite by the road with it's own Pub and Microbrewery.
We had such a good time that night in September 2010 that we made arrangements to come back to the same campsite the following spring for a bit of a longer stay, and hopefully some nice country walking. With walking in mind, it was during that longer stay in which I was to discover the River Dove and the treasure that is Dovedale, situated just four and a half miles from Ashbourne. The scenery below does start to set the scene. Although, there is much much more to come!
The main Dovedale Car Park is situated on the Derbyshire/Staffordshire Border between the villages of Thorpe (in Derbyshire) and Ilam (in Staffordshire). Ilam Hall is also nearby. Once the Car is parked and the walk commences, the real beauty of this limestone gorge within the River Dove Valley will soon take your breath away, just like it did mine!
And if that is not enough, how about the famous Dovedale Stepping Stones?
Like many Brits, I would state that I believe the Lake District is England's most beautiful national park. But I do find the Peak District also to be particularly intriguing, and Dovedale is right up there with much of the finest scenery the Lake District has to offer. My travelling experience of the Lakes is greater than my experience so far of the Peak District as a whole. That said, I would be pleasantly surprised if I ever find another Peak District treasure to match Dovedale. About twenty years before the Peak District itself became a National Park in 1951, there were suggestions that Dovedale itself could have become one of Britain's first national parks. Not surprising really.
The walk along the River Dove from the Car Park to the Village of Milldale is about three miles long. The good news for those walkers with an aversion to steep climbs, is that the walk is largely flat. The walk also takes in wildlife and interesting rock formations on route to Milldale.
And so a most pleasant walk will finally conclude in Milldale. The local shop will have a nice selection of sandwiches and other snacks, which can subsequently be enjoyed by the riverside.
Once you have enjoyed that snack, it is time to go again and walk back to the Dovedale Car Park, reliving the wonderful Dovedale experience one more time.
We had such a good time that night in September 2010 that we made arrangements to come back to the same campsite the following spring for a bit of a longer stay, and hopefully some nice country walking. With walking in mind, it was during that longer stay in which I was to discover the River Dove and the treasure that is Dovedale, situated just four and a half miles from Ashbourne. The scenery below does start to set the scene. Although, there is much much more to come!
The main Dovedale Car Park is situated on the Derbyshire/Staffordshire Border between the villages of Thorpe (in Derbyshire) and Ilam (in Staffordshire). Ilam Hall is also nearby. Once the Car is parked and the walk commences, the real beauty of this limestone gorge within the River Dove Valley will soon take your breath away, just like it did mine!
And if that is not enough, how about the famous Dovedale Stepping Stones?
Like many Brits, I would state that I believe the Lake District is England's most beautiful national park. But I do find the Peak District also to be particularly intriguing, and Dovedale is right up there with much of the finest scenery the Lake District has to offer. My travelling experience of the Lakes is greater than my experience so far of the Peak District as a whole. That said, I would be pleasantly surprised if I ever find another Peak District treasure to match Dovedale. About twenty years before the Peak District itself became a National Park in 1951, there were suggestions that Dovedale itself could have become one of Britain's first national parks. Not surprising really.
The walk along the River Dove from the Car Park to the Village of Milldale is about three miles long. The good news for those walkers with an aversion to steep climbs, is that the walk is largely flat. The walk also takes in wildlife and interesting rock formations on route to Milldale.
Once you have enjoyed that snack, it is time to go again and walk back to the Dovedale Car Park, reliving the wonderful Dovedale experience one more time.
Thursday, 21 November 2013
Warrington's very own Tom and Dave.
Featuring in the Warrington Amateur Comedy Circuit every now and then are Tom McGuinness and Dave Appleton. I went along to see what they are about at Cinnamon Brow Farm Club on Friday November 8 2013, where they were in action individually alongside other amateur artists from around the North West of England. The whole evening was a grand evening of entertainment, which was made all the more entertaining by ending on the same table as Dave's wife. How myself and my wife ended up there, well we won't go there...
Both Tom and Dave have worked together for the same retail convenience store chain for a number of years now. In real life, it is believed that the two generally bounce off each other. Local Warringtonian stereotypes feature highly in Tom's style. More generally, Tom is so random there is always a good little bit for everyone. It could be that like Tom, you support a very obscure football team for the north west. If that is the case, then you may well relate to Tom's experiences of waiting over ten hours to get served in a very well known sports retail shop!
Dave's wife is very much part of Dave's style, as Dave will talk about the wonders of Mrs A in an eloquently tongue and cheek style. The style is in fact so eloquent, it does in fact paint a picture of Mrs A up on stage accompanying him. I would though at this point warn against ending up on the same table as the delightful Mrs Appleton. The reason being that one runs the risk of being clobbered (for laughing at her expense) as as I found out!
Dave will also talk in great fondness of his rise from YTS boy to Store Manager. What is most striking are the challenges Mr A has had to overcome to achieve his rise through the ranks. To give an example, once upon a time Dave gave some sound advice to a nice old lady who sought guidance on how to stop cheese from going mouldy. Unfortunately the old dear did not take kindly to being advised to eat it!
Tom and Dave will be in action again on Sunday 1st December at the Marquis of Granby Public House in Warrington.
Both Tom and Dave have worked together for the same retail convenience store chain for a number of years now. In real life, it is believed that the two generally bounce off each other. Local Warringtonian stereotypes feature highly in Tom's style. More generally, Tom is so random there is always a good little bit for everyone. It could be that like Tom, you support a very obscure football team for the north west. If that is the case, then you may well relate to Tom's experiences of waiting over ten hours to get served in a very well known sports retail shop!
Dave's wife is very much part of Dave's style, as Dave will talk about the wonders of Mrs A in an eloquently tongue and cheek style. The style is in fact so eloquent, it does in fact paint a picture of Mrs A up on stage accompanying him. I would though at this point warn against ending up on the same table as the delightful Mrs Appleton. The reason being that one runs the risk of being clobbered (for laughing at her expense) as as I found out!
Dave will also talk in great fondness of his rise from YTS boy to Store Manager. What is most striking are the challenges Mr A has had to overcome to achieve his rise through the ranks. To give an example, once upon a time Dave gave some sound advice to a nice old lady who sought guidance on how to stop cheese from going mouldy. Unfortunately the old dear did not take kindly to being advised to eat it!
Tom and Dave will be in action again on Sunday 1st December at the Marquis of Granby Public House in Warrington.
Saturday, 9 November 2013
Football: time to scrap the Euros?
Looking to the next Euros
The next week will see the likes of the French, the Portuguese, the Swedes, and the Romanians take to the field in two legged play-offs that will determine their World Cup destiny. Victory will earn one of the remaining four European places available. However, defeat will not only be too painful to contemplate, but would leave a losing nation looking towards the next European Championships Qualifying draw in Nice on 23 February 2014, and the chance to go once again in competitive international football after the summer World Cup.
Both FIFA and UEFA have come under immense scrutiny in recent times. FIFA's decision to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar was highly questionable, considering Qatar is a nation with a population of about two million people who have never before qualified for a World Cup. Question marks have also been raised in Europe about the direction of the European Championships. The 2016 tournament in France has been expanded to twenty four teams, whilst Michel Platini (UEFA's President) has suggested the 2020 tournament could be spread across twelve or thirteen cities around the continent instead of having a host nation. Is all this necessary?
I say we should scrap the Euros altogether!
The truth is that International Football is becoming more relevant to the game's politicians than the worldwide public it is supposed to relate to. We have farcical contests like England v San Marino, and UEFA has of course recently admitted a new minnow in the form of Gibraltar. I am not saying such nations don't have a right to compete. But when you consider that a top player like Theo Walcott was hospitalised in such an unnecessary game, the club v country debate is all too real. My belief is that we need to scrap the European Championship Finals altogether. Why not have a dual European Championships/World Cup Qualifying structure instead? We could still have a contest between Europe's top two nations to decide on who gets the European Crown.
UEFA has fifty four member nations. My proposal would be to create a three tier divisional structure with promotion and relegation. All the matches would be played over the three summers when there is no World Cup. The regular club season should have the absolute minimum disruption from the international game. At the most, there should be two friendlies and maybe a couple of other international training camp get-togethers during the regular season. The top teams in the top flight of the new UEFA structure should automatically qualify for the World Cup, with some mid-table teams earning a place in a play-off system along with the leading teams in the lower league tiers.
Explaining the proposed structure
1. The top two divisions would each contain twenty nations, and would be each split into two pools of ten teams. With each team playing each other twice, that will mean eighteen rounds of fixtures which would be played over three summers. The bottom tier would be split into two pools of seven teams each. This structure would allow twelve European Nations to qualify for a World Cup.
2. In the top division, the top four teams in each pool would qualify automatically for the World Cup. The teams finishing fifth and sixth in each pool would enter a two legged play-off to reach the World Cup. The bottom team in each pool will be relegated after each qualifying period. The top team in each pool will go into the European Championship Final, which could be played in the build up to the World Cup.
3. In the second division, the winners of each pool would earn a World Cup play-off against the teams that finish sixth in each top division pool. Each second division pool winner would also gain promotion to the top flight. The runners-up in each second division pool would also enter the World Cup play-off structure, but would have to play two rounds. The first of those rounds would see each runner-up play-off against a winner of a third division pool. Should the second division runner-up get past that first hurdle, then they would play-off against a fifth placed team from the top flight. As in the top flight, the bottom team in each second division pool would get relegated.
4. The third division would see two pools of seven based on UEFA's current membership of fifty four nations. The top team in each pool would achieve promotion to the second tier, and a place in a two round play-off system. That play-off system would first involve getting past a runner-up in the second division, then a fifth placed team from the top division.
Making the Case for Change
We do at present have one summer in which FIFA insists on imposing the Confederations Cup onto the World. This tournament could currently make my proposed structure unworkable due to at least one top European Nation being involved. However whilst it may throw up the odd interesting game, is the Confederations Cup really something we need? I certainly believe it is not in Europe's interest. If the top European Nations wish to see meaningless fixtures against fifth rate no-hopers disappear, then something has got to give.
Plus, is it good for these fifth rate no-hopers to be continually taking to the field against far superior opposition knowing that at best they may get a 0-0 draw once a generation against illustrious opponents by parking the bus in front of the goal? A contest between San Marino and the Faroe Islands for instance could also be more meaningful for the countries involved.
At the top end of the European game, clashes between heavyweight nations would become more common. The closing stages of the three year competition for instance could see a contest between one nation trying to get into the European Final, whilst the other nation is trying to stay in an automatic qualifying spot for the World Cup. I feel this could be very intriguing.
Ultimately, the big plus I believe would be to help ease the Club v Country tension. You will always get supporters of course who understandably will be more passionate about their club than their country. But with a new structure defining the main international season to be after the club season, more and more younger fans over time will grow up to appreciate that supporting your country does not have to be at the detriment of supporting your club. We certainly cannot say that at present!
The next week will see the likes of the French, the Portuguese, the Swedes, and the Romanians take to the field in two legged play-offs that will determine their World Cup destiny. Victory will earn one of the remaining four European places available. However, defeat will not only be too painful to contemplate, but would leave a losing nation looking towards the next European Championships Qualifying draw in Nice on 23 February 2014, and the chance to go once again in competitive international football after the summer World Cup.
Both FIFA and UEFA have come under immense scrutiny in recent times. FIFA's decision to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar was highly questionable, considering Qatar is a nation with a population of about two million people who have never before qualified for a World Cup. Question marks have also been raised in Europe about the direction of the European Championships. The 2016 tournament in France has been expanded to twenty four teams, whilst Michel Platini (UEFA's President) has suggested the 2020 tournament could be spread across twelve or thirteen cities around the continent instead of having a host nation. Is all this necessary?
I say we should scrap the Euros altogether!
The truth is that International Football is becoming more relevant to the game's politicians than the worldwide public it is supposed to relate to. We have farcical contests like England v San Marino, and UEFA has of course recently admitted a new minnow in the form of Gibraltar. I am not saying such nations don't have a right to compete. But when you consider that a top player like Theo Walcott was hospitalised in such an unnecessary game, the club v country debate is all too real. My belief is that we need to scrap the European Championship Finals altogether. Why not have a dual European Championships/World Cup Qualifying structure instead? We could still have a contest between Europe's top two nations to decide on who gets the European Crown.
UEFA has fifty four member nations. My proposal would be to create a three tier divisional structure with promotion and relegation. All the matches would be played over the three summers when there is no World Cup. The regular club season should have the absolute minimum disruption from the international game. At the most, there should be two friendlies and maybe a couple of other international training camp get-togethers during the regular season. The top teams in the top flight of the new UEFA structure should automatically qualify for the World Cup, with some mid-table teams earning a place in a play-off system along with the leading teams in the lower league tiers.
Explaining the proposed structure
1. The top two divisions would each contain twenty nations, and would be each split into two pools of ten teams. With each team playing each other twice, that will mean eighteen rounds of fixtures which would be played over three summers. The bottom tier would be split into two pools of seven teams each. This structure would allow twelve European Nations to qualify for a World Cup.
2. In the top division, the top four teams in each pool would qualify automatically for the World Cup. The teams finishing fifth and sixth in each pool would enter a two legged play-off to reach the World Cup. The bottom team in each pool will be relegated after each qualifying period. The top team in each pool will go into the European Championship Final, which could be played in the build up to the World Cup.
3. In the second division, the winners of each pool would earn a World Cup play-off against the teams that finish sixth in each top division pool. Each second division pool winner would also gain promotion to the top flight. The runners-up in each second division pool would also enter the World Cup play-off structure, but would have to play two rounds. The first of those rounds would see each runner-up play-off against a winner of a third division pool. Should the second division runner-up get past that first hurdle, then they would play-off against a fifth placed team from the top flight. As in the top flight, the bottom team in each second division pool would get relegated.
4. The third division would see two pools of seven based on UEFA's current membership of fifty four nations. The top team in each pool would achieve promotion to the second tier, and a place in a two round play-off system. That play-off system would first involve getting past a runner-up in the second division, then a fifth placed team from the top division.
Making the Case for Change
We do at present have one summer in which FIFA insists on imposing the Confederations Cup onto the World. This tournament could currently make my proposed structure unworkable due to at least one top European Nation being involved. However whilst it may throw up the odd interesting game, is the Confederations Cup really something we need? I certainly believe it is not in Europe's interest. If the top European Nations wish to see meaningless fixtures against fifth rate no-hopers disappear, then something has got to give.
Plus, is it good for these fifth rate no-hopers to be continually taking to the field against far superior opposition knowing that at best they may get a 0-0 draw once a generation against illustrious opponents by parking the bus in front of the goal? A contest between San Marino and the Faroe Islands for instance could also be more meaningful for the countries involved.
At the top end of the European game, clashes between heavyweight nations would become more common. The closing stages of the three year competition for instance could see a contest between one nation trying to get into the European Final, whilst the other nation is trying to stay in an automatic qualifying spot for the World Cup. I feel this could be very intriguing.
Ultimately, the big plus I believe would be to help ease the Club v Country tension. You will always get supporters of course who understandably will be more passionate about their club than their country. But with a new structure defining the main international season to be after the club season, more and more younger fans over time will grow up to appreciate that supporting your country does not have to be at the detriment of supporting your club. We certainly cannot say that at present!
Friday, 1 November 2013
An English Devolution Perspective
Scotland will go to the polls in 2014 on whether or not they should become Independent from the rest of the UK. Personally I would rather Scotland stays in the Union. However I do accept it is a choice in which the Scottish people have to make their own judgement on.
A more pressing matter for me personally is the future of England and the English regions. Whatever the outcome of the Scottish referendum, an imbalance now exists within the UK as MPs from all nations of the Union can vote on English only matters. However, English MPs cannot vote on policy areas which have been devolved to the National Parliaments or Assemblies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. I fully agree that something needs to be done to correct this imbalance.
There are two suggestions I would not agree with. One is that you have some sittings in Westminster that only England based MPs can take part in. Even if the English MPs were to be given higher salaries to reflect the fact that they would be doing more work, it would create a complicated situation where some members of the same house would be more important than other members. For me, in any democratic body an individual vote should be equal.
The second option I would not favour is that of an English Parliament. For me, the big disadvantage of no English devolution is the lack of locally elected politicians with clout who could argue the case of inward investment to the business world for the area in which they represent. Also, I don't see the point in having a second parliament based in London. It would be another decision making machine that would be too remote from the great cities of the north like Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle etc.
On that note, seeing cities around the country introduce elected mayors is a measure which I consider to be a positive step. Moving on from elected mayors, another idea of interest is City regions. As a Merseysider, but not quite from Liverpool itself, I can state there are a number of towns around the outskirts of Liverpool in which the people would still class themselves as Liverpudlians, despite not being in the official population count. This is a situation repeated in other northern cities. Although the official population count of Manchester is half a million, such population figures can be misleading due to the neighbouring areas which are excluded. I do have some suspicion that boundaries have been erected or maintained for convenience.
Back in my native Merseyside and the town of Formby in which I mainly grew up, there is little debate that Formby is economically and culturally linked with the great City that is Liverpool. However there are other towns with less affiliation with Liverpool, such as Southport which is eight miles north of Formby. Southport is a traditional seaside town with tourism very much key in the Town's economy. Although, it should also be pointed out that there are also residents in Southport who commute to Liverpool, Preston or beyond. Sections of Southport's population have long argued for a return to their traditional county, Lancashire. Some Merseysiders would understandably view this as snobbery. That said, such towns would still need consideration in a new English devolution model, even if they don't wish to be linked to a City region. On that note, a drawback of City Regions is that you could see a regional map with some towns clearly linked to a City, and others either enclaved separately out on their own or being forced into an uneasy co-existence which is perhaps no good for anyone.
Another idea that comes up for discussion from time to time is English Regional Assemblies. This would be my own preferred model for devolution. People may well ask what powers should be devolved? I believe a sensible approach would be to follow the principle of subsidiarity, as laid out in article five on the Treaty of European Union. That means the decision is taken at the closest possible level to the citizen. For example, UK Defence Policy would logically require policy making to remain at national level. However, on the other side of the coin, an area such as nature conservation or tourism would require a very limited role from Central Government.
The North East voted against a regional assembly in 2004. I do understand the reason in which many voters in the North East voted against the proposal, in that there was a fear it would merely mean another unnecessary tier of government. My answer is simple. Take a leaf out of previous proposals to reform the House of Lords, which would have seen the number of members almost halved. We could simply do something similar with the House of Commons. This could mean that some of the MPs who would lose out on a seat at national level, could instead contest a seat in a regional assembly. That way some of those turkeys sitting at Westminster would not necessarily be voting for Christmas!
A more pressing matter for me personally is the future of England and the English regions. Whatever the outcome of the Scottish referendum, an imbalance now exists within the UK as MPs from all nations of the Union can vote on English only matters. However, English MPs cannot vote on policy areas which have been devolved to the National Parliaments or Assemblies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. I fully agree that something needs to be done to correct this imbalance.
There are two suggestions I would not agree with. One is that you have some sittings in Westminster that only England based MPs can take part in. Even if the English MPs were to be given higher salaries to reflect the fact that they would be doing more work, it would create a complicated situation where some members of the same house would be more important than other members. For me, in any democratic body an individual vote should be equal.
The second option I would not favour is that of an English Parliament. For me, the big disadvantage of no English devolution is the lack of locally elected politicians with clout who could argue the case of inward investment to the business world for the area in which they represent. Also, I don't see the point in having a second parliament based in London. It would be another decision making machine that would be too remote from the great cities of the north like Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle etc.
On that note, seeing cities around the country introduce elected mayors is a measure which I consider to be a positive step. Moving on from elected mayors, another idea of interest is City regions. As a Merseysider, but not quite from Liverpool itself, I can state there are a number of towns around the outskirts of Liverpool in which the people would still class themselves as Liverpudlians, despite not being in the official population count. This is a situation repeated in other northern cities. Although the official population count of Manchester is half a million, such population figures can be misleading due to the neighbouring areas which are excluded. I do have some suspicion that boundaries have been erected or maintained for convenience.
Another idea that comes up for discussion from time to time is English Regional Assemblies. This would be my own preferred model for devolution. People may well ask what powers should be devolved? I believe a sensible approach would be to follow the principle of subsidiarity, as laid out in article five on the Treaty of European Union. That means the decision is taken at the closest possible level to the citizen. For example, UK Defence Policy would logically require policy making to remain at national level. However, on the other side of the coin, an area such as nature conservation or tourism would require a very limited role from Central Government.
The North East voted against a regional assembly in 2004. I do understand the reason in which many voters in the North East voted against the proposal, in that there was a fear it would merely mean another unnecessary tier of government. My answer is simple. Take a leaf out of previous proposals to reform the House of Lords, which would have seen the number of members almost halved. We could simply do something similar with the House of Commons. This could mean that some of the MPs who would lose out on a seat at national level, could instead contest a seat in a regional assembly. That way some of those turkeys sitting at Westminster would not necessarily be voting for Christmas!
Time to change the US Electoral College System?
From one of my posts on 30 September, it is fairly clear that I fall into the category of someone concerned about the British Parliamentary electoral system. Very simply not enough voices are heard and if you live in a safe Conservative or a safe Labour seat, you don't see the main parties' big hitters knocking on your door during a general election campaign.
I feel this is also a problem across the pond. The US Presidential Election system is often referred to as the Electoral College System. What it means is that the candidate who polls the most votes in a particular state, gets all that state's electoral college votes irrespective of the margin of victory in that particular state. As with the British Parliamentary System's marginal constituency, it is all very well if you live in a swing state like Florida. However if you live in what is generally considered to be a non-swing state like Texas or New York, then the Presidential candidates will not be concentrating their campaigning on your doorstep!
I recognise the US and UK have other big issues on their respective agendas at the moment such as the economy, and rightly so. However turnouts at recent Presidential elections have been consistently below 60%. In the UK, general election turnouts have been consistently below 70% in recent times. You don't have to be a political genius to understand that there is a feeling the larger parties are quite happy to snuff out the smaller parties from making any kind of impact.
I acknowledge that in the US, there have been more proposals in Congress for constitutional amendments on the electoral college subject than on any other subject. But why is the electoral college issue not as big an issue as it should be? We are living in changing times. If the western world, arguably led by the US is trying to convey a message to parts of the world such as the Middle East that democracy is the way forward, then surely there needs to be a clear demonstration that voices do get heard!
I feel this is also a problem across the pond. The US Presidential Election system is often referred to as the Electoral College System. What it means is that the candidate who polls the most votes in a particular state, gets all that state's electoral college votes irrespective of the margin of victory in that particular state. As with the British Parliamentary System's marginal constituency, it is all very well if you live in a swing state like Florida. However if you live in what is generally considered to be a non-swing state like Texas or New York, then the Presidential candidates will not be concentrating their campaigning on your doorstep!
I recognise the US and UK have other big issues on their respective agendas at the moment such as the economy, and rightly so. However turnouts at recent Presidential elections have been consistently below 60%. In the UK, general election turnouts have been consistently below 70% in recent times. You don't have to be a political genius to understand that there is a feeling the larger parties are quite happy to snuff out the smaller parties from making any kind of impact.
I acknowledge that in the US, there have been more proposals in Congress for constitutional amendments on the electoral college subject than on any other subject. But why is the electoral college issue not as big an issue as it should be? We are living in changing times. If the western world, arguably led by the US is trying to convey a message to parts of the world such as the Middle East that democracy is the way forward, then surely there needs to be a clear demonstration that voices do get heard!
Friday, 4 October 2013
Ullswater's Unique Beauty
With the exception of my native Merseyside, my favourite corner of England is the Lake District. I would estimate that I have visited the Lakes nearly every year for over a decade now, even if it has been just for a short break. In that period of time I have got to know the area reasonably well, and know most of the main roads in and around the Lake District National Park.
The part of the English Lakes I regard as my favourite is Ullswater, which is the second largest lake. For me it is the most beautiful, and what I find particularly appealing is the limited commercialisation. The lake has two main villages on it's shores. There is Pooley Bridge to the North, and Glenridding to the South West.
If you love your walking, you will not be disappointed. There are a range of walks available around the lake. One small walk I have identified is from Glenridding to Lanty's Tarn. As demonstrated by some of the shots below, some of the scenery can only be described as breathtaking.
Rather than take the walk straight back down to Glenridding, why not then take a small detour towards the path to Helvellyn?
And then you can find your way back into the Village via the Pub!
For those who like to relax there is always the option of the Ullswater Steamer boat which runs each day between Glenridding, Pooley Bridge, and the small hamlet of Howtown on the quieter eastern shore.
Glenridding and Pooley Bridge are both nice villages with a good choice of pubs or hotel bars which are open to non-residents.
If you do go on the Steamer, a small stop off at Howtown is a must. On my most recent visit I briefly visited the Howtown Hotel, which gave me an experience I can only describe as timeless, serving a nice local beer from a hatch.
With views like this, what's keeping you from Ullswater?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)