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.

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!

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!

Argentina needs to re-examine Malvinas tactics!

The Falklands/Malvinas is far from a settled issue.  The referendum in March 2013 has shown if anything that the issue of self-determination is far from the sole issue at stake.  It is no secret on how I view the issue could be resolved long term.  But recent manoeuvres by the Argentine Government will benefit the Malvinas cause very little in the long run, even if President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner somehow sees merit in helping to use the policy for short term domestic consumption.

Last month saw the Argentine Foreign Minister, Hector Timmerman meet up with the President of the Chagos refugees Group.  Whilst the disgraceful case of the Chagossians being expelled from their homeland does expose double standards in Britain's self determination argument, what exactly is Argentina's point about the Chaggosians with regard to the Malvinas question?  Suggestions have been made by the Argentine Foreign Ministry that both the Chagos Islands and the Malvinas Islands are linked by the argument of territorial integrity, due to the Indian Ocean archipelago's sovereignty being claimed by Mauritius.  However, if the Kirchner Government also believes in the repatriation of these people to their homeland with full rights to self determination, then are they saying that maybe self determination could play some part in a resolution to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute?

Back in September, there was the attempt to cosy up to Spain and form a Latin Alliance to put Britain under international pressure on both Falklands/Malvinas and Gibraltar.  The suggestion that Spain suddenly lost interest in the alliance is not the surprise here.  It is rather the motivation to form a Latin Alliance in the first instance on the part of Argentina!  How would Argentina's case benefit from an alliance with a nation that has arguably three territories whose natural geographical link is with Morocco rather than Spain?  Rather like Gibraltar being situated on the southern tip of Spain, Morocco's northern coast is interrupted by enclaved Spanish territory in the form of Ceuta and Melila.  It should also be pointed out that the Canary Islands are clearly much closer to Morocco's west coast than the Spanish mainland.

Arguments made by Spanish Politicians along the lines of Ceuta and Melila having long been part of Spain, compared to the time Gibraltar has been occupied by Britain, or that Ceuta and Melila are actually part of Spain as opposed to Gibraltar being a British Overseas Territory and not a part of the United Kingdom, are complete nonsense.   As for Argentina's Malvinas aspirations, it is quite clear that they will not accept any long term settlement that would see them lose face.  With weaknesses in the British self determination argument which I highlighted in my post on 30 September, and the inevitability that the place in which the Falklands/Malvinas war holds in the British psyche likely to recede over time, Argentina could one day have the opportunity to secure at least a meaningful compromise.  But what Argentina also needs to do is to not undermine it's own case by forming an alliance with a nation  like Spain, even if they do both speak the same language!

ARGENTINA NEEDS TO FOCUS ON IT'S OWN CASE WITH REGARDS TO THE FALKLANDS/MALVINAS.  IT IS NOT IN ARGENTINA'S LONG TERM INTEREST TO ALLOW ANY DISTRACTION FROM OTHER CASES LIKE GIBRALTAR WHICH MAY WELL HAVE SOME SIMILARITIES, BUT WHICH ARE FAR FROM IDENTICAL!

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!