Liverpool Football Club will kick off Saturday evening's Barclays Premier League match at Southampton in need of just two more victories from their remaining eleven matches to surpass last season's points total of 61. Although Brendan Rodgers walked into the Anfield hotseat twenty one months ago with some question marks over his credentials, being the genuine choice of Fenway Sports Group was always going to mean that Rodgers would be in a much stronger position than Roy Hodgson (who was inherited from the disgraceful previous American Owners) and Kop favourite Kenny Dalglish, whom Rodgers succeeded.
Although Liverpool finished the 2012/13 season in seventh place, the Reds' average league position over the previous three seasons had also averaged seventh place. The 2012/13 campaign did see the disappointments of domestic cup exits at the hands of Rodgers' former club Swansea City, as well as lower league Oldham Althletic. But more crucially, the campaign also saw the Reds cut the gap to the top four by five points from the previous campaign under Dalglish.
When I was travelling on the train to Liverpool's opening match of this season against Stoke, I expressed my hope to a fellow supporter that we would be in the mix for a top four position come the final few games of the season, and that our points total would break through the 70 point barrier. It would be so easy now to get carried away and say that nothing less than a top three or top four position would do. Against a backdrop that the Reds can now break through the 70 point barrier by winning less than half of their remaining games, missing out on Champions League qualification this season may prove to be a missed opportunity.
Going beyond the statistical talk of points tallies increasing year on year, the football enjoyed by the Anfield faithful has at times been a delight during the current campaign. In the SAS, Liverpool have arguably the most feared partnership in the league. They can clearly play together. From a personal point of view, being at Anfield this season to see both Suarez's four goal haul against Norwich and Sturridge's double strike in the space of a couple of minutes against the Toffees, has been a top top feeling.
Prior to Rodgers' signing of Sturridge, Suarez was at times carrying a struggling team. That said, there can be little doubt Rodgers is now getting more out of the iconic Uruguayan, in part due to the acquisition of Sturridge. Having not delivered at Man City or Chelsea, Sturridge was viewed in some quarters to be a big gamble. It is surely right now that with that gamble reaping dividends, and with only a little over a year remaining on his current contract, Fenway Sports Group must surely recognise that Rodgers has to be rewarded himself?
Monday 24 February 2014
Wednesday 12 February 2014
Is Spain a failed state?
Ten years ago, Spain's economy was seen to be outperforming many other EU economies. The then conservative Prime Minister Jose-Maria Aznar was considered in some quarters to have led several key reforms. With Aznar set to depart the scene at the 2004 General Election, his conservative Popular Party looked set to be on course for a third successive election victory, such was the positive outlook for the Spanish economy. Mariano Rajoy (his successor) in fact lost that election.
Ten years on, Spain has another conservative government led by Rajoy, following two successive terms of socialist government. As part of a eurozone trying to recover from the financial crisis of 2008, the Spanish economic outlook is not currently looking so rosy. Not only does Spain have high unemployment, we now hear talk about autonomous regions with separatist tendencies looking to break away. We also now hear about the odd royal scandal. There is the chink of light provided by the national football team, which is considered by some to be one of world football's greatest of all time. What could all this mean Spain will look like in a decade's time?
I would not be surprised if Spain became a republic, and one with much reduced influence on the back of successful breakaways in both Catalonia and the Basque Country. For all the official statements coming out of Madrid indicating that an independence referendum in Catalonia later this year is illegal, the reality is that Madrid will have no choice at some point in accepting that the people in Catalonia do in fact have the right to self-determination.
If the people of Catalonia don't have the right to self-determination, then why on earth has Catalonia President Artur Mas's Democratic Convergence of Catalonia not been banned, along with other pro-independence parties? As I indicated in my post on January 1 2014 entitled "Spain blocking Catalan Independence Vote could be a test of the EU's democratic values," prospective EU member states must be seen to be democratic as stipulated by the Treaty of European Union, just like existing EU Member States! Indeed Mr Mas agreed in a BBC TV interview last month that Spain and the EU itself would have a constitutional crisis in the event of Madrid rejecting a referendum in support of Catalonian independence.
Comparisons are often made between Catalonia and Scotland. There are though a few differences between Scotland and Catalonia. The main one is that the UK Government has acknowledged the Scottish Government's right to hold an independence referendum. Madrid needs to correct this mistake quickly, and follow the UK example. After all, support for Scottish independence has been generally perceived to be around the 30% mark for decades, whereas current support for Catalan independence of around the 50% mark has only really come about due to the euro financial crisis of recent years.
Who knows what the Catalan people would decide after a considered process with all the arguments for and against. However, for any Nation State to deprive a constituent part of the right to self-determination as the government of Mariano Rajoy appears to be doing, it can only prove to be counterproductive in the long term as the deprivation of democracy will merely strengthen the Catalan resolve.
A Spanish Republic is possible but monarchies can also mean stability due to the Monarch's political neutrality, and the lack of political power which would be concentrated towards one political office. But in the twenty first century, monarchies must now embark on a journey to being a mere figurehead. Lavish and ill-judged holidays as King Juan Carlos has embarked upon in recent years, along with accusations of corruption (as faced by Princess Cristina) will not go down well in any modern western society, irrespective of the era of austerity. The Spanish Monarchy has possibly entered a period in which it has no room for further error.
Madrid's current approach to the Catalan situation is not the only example of Spain's A La Carte approach to democracy. The British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar can provide more than the occasional episode of tension between London and Madrid. The consistent position from London has been that it is for the people of Gibraltar to decide on Gibraltar's future, much to Madrid's displeasure.
That is not to say there aren't holes in British arguments when it comes to the self-determination of British Overseas Territories. On the one hand, Britain continues to argue it's right to administer the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, on the basis of the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination. Yet, there is other British Territory in the South Atlantic such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, where there is actually no native population. Both of these territories are claimed by Argentina as part of it's own national territory.
Whilst Madrid does from time to time have genuine cause for grievance in cases of cigarette smuggling for instance, Spain's claim on Gibraltar is no more rightful than Morocco's claim on the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, which are located on Morocco's North African Coast. Spanish politicians have stated that the situation of Ceuta and Melilla is different to that of Gibraltar on the basis of Gibraltar being a British Overseas Territory, as opposed to being a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Such an argument is merely colonial waffle.
HOWEVER THE NEXT DECADE OR SO DEFINES SPAIN, THIS A LA CARTE APPROACH TO THE PRECIOUS COMMODITY THAT IS DEMOCRACY WILL NEED TO CHANGE!
Ten years on, Spain has another conservative government led by Rajoy, following two successive terms of socialist government. As part of a eurozone trying to recover from the financial crisis of 2008, the Spanish economic outlook is not currently looking so rosy. Not only does Spain have high unemployment, we now hear talk about autonomous regions with separatist tendencies looking to break away. We also now hear about the odd royal scandal. There is the chink of light provided by the national football team, which is considered by some to be one of world football's greatest of all time. What could all this mean Spain will look like in a decade's time?
I would not be surprised if Spain became a republic, and one with much reduced influence on the back of successful breakaways in both Catalonia and the Basque Country. For all the official statements coming out of Madrid indicating that an independence referendum in Catalonia later this year is illegal, the reality is that Madrid will have no choice at some point in accepting that the people in Catalonia do in fact have the right to self-determination.
If the people of Catalonia don't have the right to self-determination, then why on earth has Catalonia President Artur Mas's Democratic Convergence of Catalonia not been banned, along with other pro-independence parties? As I indicated in my post on January 1 2014 entitled "Spain blocking Catalan Independence Vote could be a test of the EU's democratic values," prospective EU member states must be seen to be democratic as stipulated by the Treaty of European Union, just like existing EU Member States! Indeed Mr Mas agreed in a BBC TV interview last month that Spain and the EU itself would have a constitutional crisis in the event of Madrid rejecting a referendum in support of Catalonian independence.
Comparisons are often made between Catalonia and Scotland. There are though a few differences between Scotland and Catalonia. The main one is that the UK Government has acknowledged the Scottish Government's right to hold an independence referendum. Madrid needs to correct this mistake quickly, and follow the UK example. After all, support for Scottish independence has been generally perceived to be around the 30% mark for decades, whereas current support for Catalan independence of around the 50% mark has only really come about due to the euro financial crisis of recent years.
Who knows what the Catalan people would decide after a considered process with all the arguments for and against. However, for any Nation State to deprive a constituent part of the right to self-determination as the government of Mariano Rajoy appears to be doing, it can only prove to be counterproductive in the long term as the deprivation of democracy will merely strengthen the Catalan resolve.
A Spanish Republic is possible but monarchies can also mean stability due to the Monarch's political neutrality, and the lack of political power which would be concentrated towards one political office. But in the twenty first century, monarchies must now embark on a journey to being a mere figurehead. Lavish and ill-judged holidays as King Juan Carlos has embarked upon in recent years, along with accusations of corruption (as faced by Princess Cristina) will not go down well in any modern western society, irrespective of the era of austerity. The Spanish Monarchy has possibly entered a period in which it has no room for further error.
Madrid's current approach to the Catalan situation is not the only example of Spain's A La Carte approach to democracy. The British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar can provide more than the occasional episode of tension between London and Madrid. The consistent position from London has been that it is for the people of Gibraltar to decide on Gibraltar's future, much to Madrid's displeasure.
That is not to say there aren't holes in British arguments when it comes to the self-determination of British Overseas Territories. On the one hand, Britain continues to argue it's right to administer the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, on the basis of the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination. Yet, there is other British Territory in the South Atlantic such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, where there is actually no native population. Both of these territories are claimed by Argentina as part of it's own national territory.
Whilst Madrid does from time to time have genuine cause for grievance in cases of cigarette smuggling for instance, Spain's claim on Gibraltar is no more rightful than Morocco's claim on the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, which are located on Morocco's North African Coast. Spanish politicians have stated that the situation of Ceuta and Melilla is different to that of Gibraltar on the basis of Gibraltar being a British Overseas Territory, as opposed to being a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Such an argument is merely colonial waffle.
HOWEVER THE NEXT DECADE OR SO DEFINES SPAIN, THIS A LA CARTE APPROACH TO THE PRECIOUS COMMODITY THAT IS DEMOCRACY WILL NEED TO CHANGE!
Saturday 1 February 2014
ConDem Fifty Pence tax reversal was premature!
The final weekend of January saw the so-called big horror emerge that Labour will reinstate the 50p in the pound tax rate for those highest earners!
By getting to the heart of the issue, there will be those people who will instinctively be for the highest earners probably paying even more than 50p; there will also be those who consider such a move to be the road to uncompetitiveness. Ultimately, the main reality a government of any colour must reconcile is what level of taxation will produce an optimum level of revenue for the exchequer. It is a very similar pressure to a business on setting it's unit sales price, whilst taking on board it's costs to maximise profit. The main difference here for a government is not just a question of financial cost, but also one of public perception.
The fact that there are so few people who would see their tax rate increase, I would suggest the 50p tax rate will influence the voting intentions of very few based on how the policy would actually impact their wallets and purses. If there were to be a likelihood though that this tax increase could scare business off from inward investment into the UK, then all ordinary citizens should be concerned. INWARD INVESTMENT ULTIMATELY MEANS JOBS!
The aftermath of this announcement by Labour's Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, has seen the predictable responses from the Conservatives and some sections of the UK Business Community, including the Confederation of British Industry's Policy Director who referred to the policy as one which could put off talented people from coming to the UK to invest.
Let us not forget though that the decision by the ConDem Government to scrap the 50p rate was not universally popular amongst the UK Business Community in the first place. Former Marks and Spencers Boss, Sir Stuart Rose indicated in September 2011 that there was no credible case in scrapping the 50p rate, against the backdrop of difficult economic times we were living in. IN FACT SIR STUART ALSO INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO DEBATE WHETHER HIGH EARNERS LIKE HIMSELF SHOULD IN FACT PAY MORE TAX!
With the UK economic outlook now generally looking more positive, is the case really credible to now put the rate back to 50p? Sir Stuart Rose appears to have now changed his tune on the 50p tax rate, whereas both main UK Political Parties have been quick to highlight opposing sets of data in support of each other's case. Reading between the lines, it is probable that the policy won't raise a huge amount; it also won't see any reduction in the amount of taxation that will be collected in a worse case scenario.
The case for re-instating the 50p tax rate comes down to the cost which all governments of different colours must weigh up in terms of the cost of public perception. Most ordinary hard working Britons knew all too well that an era of austerity was on the horizon in 2010, whatever the make up of the next government. WHAT RANKLES SO MANY PEOPLE THOUGH IS THAT THERE IS A GOVERNMENT FILLED WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WHO SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HAVE TO STRUGGLE AND FIND THAT EXTRA MONEY WHEN A BASIC LIVING COST INCREASES!
In a series of interviews in which Ed Balls has given in the aftermath of the 50p announcement, it is quite clear to me that the policy is not a return to Labour policies of a bygone era which clearly did make a compelling case of delivering uncompetitive tax policies. It is particularly important to highlight Balls has a preference for taxes to be lower not higher. However, the UK still has a budget deficit to address in the here and now.
Ed Balls will no doubt need to do much more on the run up to next year's general election in spelling out other specifics of how Labour's economic policy will be different to that of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. What a prospective return to a 50p tax rate will offer is a symbolic recognition that the Government of the Day does have a sense of understanding of what ordinary folk are going through. THE CONDEM COALITION DECISION TO REDUCE THE 50P TAX RATE WAS FAR TOO PREMATURE!
By getting to the heart of the issue, there will be those people who will instinctively be for the highest earners probably paying even more than 50p; there will also be those who consider such a move to be the road to uncompetitiveness. Ultimately, the main reality a government of any colour must reconcile is what level of taxation will produce an optimum level of revenue for the exchequer. It is a very similar pressure to a business on setting it's unit sales price, whilst taking on board it's costs to maximise profit. The main difference here for a government is not just a question of financial cost, but also one of public perception.
The fact that there are so few people who would see their tax rate increase, I would suggest the 50p tax rate will influence the voting intentions of very few based on how the policy would actually impact their wallets and purses. If there were to be a likelihood though that this tax increase could scare business off from inward investment into the UK, then all ordinary citizens should be concerned. INWARD INVESTMENT ULTIMATELY MEANS JOBS!
The aftermath of this announcement by Labour's Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, has seen the predictable responses from the Conservatives and some sections of the UK Business Community, including the Confederation of British Industry's Policy Director who referred to the policy as one which could put off talented people from coming to the UK to invest.
Let us not forget though that the decision by the ConDem Government to scrap the 50p rate was not universally popular amongst the UK Business Community in the first place. Former Marks and Spencers Boss, Sir Stuart Rose indicated in September 2011 that there was no credible case in scrapping the 50p rate, against the backdrop of difficult economic times we were living in. IN FACT SIR STUART ALSO INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO DEBATE WHETHER HIGH EARNERS LIKE HIMSELF SHOULD IN FACT PAY MORE TAX!
With the UK economic outlook now generally looking more positive, is the case really credible to now put the rate back to 50p? Sir Stuart Rose appears to have now changed his tune on the 50p tax rate, whereas both main UK Political Parties have been quick to highlight opposing sets of data in support of each other's case. Reading between the lines, it is probable that the policy won't raise a huge amount; it also won't see any reduction in the amount of taxation that will be collected in a worse case scenario.
The case for re-instating the 50p tax rate comes down to the cost which all governments of different colours must weigh up in terms of the cost of public perception. Most ordinary hard working Britons knew all too well that an era of austerity was on the horizon in 2010, whatever the make up of the next government. WHAT RANKLES SO MANY PEOPLE THOUGH IS THAT THERE IS A GOVERNMENT FILLED WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WHO SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HAVE TO STRUGGLE AND FIND THAT EXTRA MONEY WHEN A BASIC LIVING COST INCREASES!
In a series of interviews in which Ed Balls has given in the aftermath of the 50p announcement, it is quite clear to me that the policy is not a return to Labour policies of a bygone era which clearly did make a compelling case of delivering uncompetitive tax policies. It is particularly important to highlight Balls has a preference for taxes to be lower not higher. However, the UK still has a budget deficit to address in the here and now.
Ed Balls will no doubt need to do much more on the run up to next year's general election in spelling out other specifics of how Labour's economic policy will be different to that of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. What a prospective return to a 50p tax rate will offer is a symbolic recognition that the Government of the Day does have a sense of understanding of what ordinary folk are going through. THE CONDEM COALITION DECISION TO REDUCE THE 50P TAX RATE WAS FAR TOO PREMATURE!
Three reasons why I just can't take UKIP seriously!
Number One- Godfrey Bloom
Godfrey Bloom MEP is very simply a ridiculous specimen of a man! Why? Because he had to be ejected from the European Parliament for directing a Nazi slogan at a German MEP. In the Twenty First Century, this is simply unacceptable!
And if that is not enough, there was the incident in which he heckled the then Financial Services Authority Chief, that has subsequently given Bloom the honour of being the first person to be ejected from the Mansion House since the late eighteenth century. Of course, who could forget his "Bongo Bongo Land" remark concerning countries who receive overseas aid!
Number Two- The other weirdos crawling out of the UKIP Cupboard!
Although Mr Bloom's many indiscretions may have led to him no longer sitting in the European Parliament as a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party, enter David Silvester. The Henley-On-Thames Councillor, who had just under a year ago defected to UKIP from the Conservatives, made national headlines last month for his views that recent floods were a consequence of David Cameron legalising Gay Marriage!
Whilst some people may be quick to acknowledge the decisiveness of the UKIP leadership in suspending Mr Silvester, it is also worth remembering that UKIP were fully aware of Mr Silvester's general viewpoint on the subject of gay marriage, which of course prompted his defection from the Conservative Party in the first place. The question now will concern who else is waiting to crawl out of the UKIP cupboard?
Number Three- Nigel Farage has Colonial Tendencies!
UKIP Leader Nigel Farage does generally speak very very well and I heartily commend him for the prompt manner in which he has dealt with Mr Silvester. Farage has also though suggested that the British Overseas Territories (those relics from the once all powerful empire) should be allowed representation at Westminster. What Farage suggests is a detachment from the reality that the only UK policy areas which apply to these self-governing territories are Defence and Foreign Policy.
Therefore, for these territories to gain Westminster representation would surely be more unbalanced than what is referred to as the West Lothian Question, which has emerged as a consequence of Scottish Devolution. How can it be right for these territories to have an elected representative who can vote on English health matters for instance? Does Farage also consider it to be a spiffing idea for Mainland UK residents to gain electoral representation for the Legislative bodies of British Overseas Territories?
Of course, how workable would such an arrangement be of having an Overseas Territory MP? Would the Overseas Territories MP have a surgery in Pitcairn Island one weekend, then another surgery in the Falklands the next? Or would the MP simply conduct his surgery by Skype? I believe the main reason Farage raised this issue is not so much that he feels these territories have a dangerously muted voice, but more along the lines that he sees the British Overseas Territories as his best hope of UKIP winning a seat at Westminster!
Godfrey Bloom MEP is very simply a ridiculous specimen of a man! Why? Because he had to be ejected from the European Parliament for directing a Nazi slogan at a German MEP. In the Twenty First Century, this is simply unacceptable!
And if that is not enough, there was the incident in which he heckled the then Financial Services Authority Chief, that has subsequently given Bloom the honour of being the first person to be ejected from the Mansion House since the late eighteenth century. Of course, who could forget his "Bongo Bongo Land" remark concerning countries who receive overseas aid!
Number Two- The other weirdos crawling out of the UKIP Cupboard!
Although Mr Bloom's many indiscretions may have led to him no longer sitting in the European Parliament as a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party, enter David Silvester. The Henley-On-Thames Councillor, who had just under a year ago defected to UKIP from the Conservatives, made national headlines last month for his views that recent floods were a consequence of David Cameron legalising Gay Marriage!
Whilst some people may be quick to acknowledge the decisiveness of the UKIP leadership in suspending Mr Silvester, it is also worth remembering that UKIP were fully aware of Mr Silvester's general viewpoint on the subject of gay marriage, which of course prompted his defection from the Conservative Party in the first place. The question now will concern who else is waiting to crawl out of the UKIP cupboard?
Number Three- Nigel Farage has Colonial Tendencies!
UKIP Leader Nigel Farage does generally speak very very well and I heartily commend him for the prompt manner in which he has dealt with Mr Silvester. Farage has also though suggested that the British Overseas Territories (those relics from the once all powerful empire) should be allowed representation at Westminster. What Farage suggests is a detachment from the reality that the only UK policy areas which apply to these self-governing territories are Defence and Foreign Policy.
Therefore, for these territories to gain Westminster representation would surely be more unbalanced than what is referred to as the West Lothian Question, which has emerged as a consequence of Scottish Devolution. How can it be right for these territories to have an elected representative who can vote on English health matters for instance? Does Farage also consider it to be a spiffing idea for Mainland UK residents to gain electoral representation for the Legislative bodies of British Overseas Territories?
Of course, how workable would such an arrangement be of having an Overseas Territory MP? Would the Overseas Territories MP have a surgery in Pitcairn Island one weekend, then another surgery in the Falklands the next? Or would the MP simply conduct his surgery by Skype? I believe the main reason Farage raised this issue is not so much that he feels these territories have a dangerously muted voice, but more along the lines that he sees the British Overseas Territories as his best hope of UKIP winning a seat at Westminster!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)