Sunday 22 July 2012

One Night in Budapest


 
The place where you can shoot a PKM Machine Gun in the afternoon and sing Aerosmith at a Karaoke Bar at 4am, oh and there's a bit of culture thrown in to.

With the Olympic road blocking behemoth bearing down on us like Boris Johnson's ego, the time may seem right for many people to give London a wide berth for a period of the games. A cheeky long weekend away where Olympic lanes and anti aircraft missiles on residential buildings are considered ludicrous fantasy would appear ideal. Ladies and Gentleman in my one and only attempt at travel journalism I give you my candidate for your consideration, the beaming beauty of Budapest.

If its oceans of culture and beautiful architecture you're seeking and then this city on the Danube has it in spades. The city seems to have been spared too much destruction during the war so there are plenty of 19th century masterpieces to marvel at including St. Stephen's Basilica in the centre of the city.

As ever with old religious buildings you get the opportunity to show how clever you are by attempting to translate the Latin phrases that adorn these buildings, someone may question it but who knows whose really right, it's a dead language after all.

If you want to see the city in all its splendour then a trek up to the Royal Palace on the hill is a must although be warned if you have the fitness levels of an asthmatic sloth like me, then you may be spending too much time trying to actually breathe rather than enjoying the incredible view.

Once you've patted yourself on the back for actually bothering to walk round a museum about the Soviet era and pretending to empathise about how bad it must have been to have one shoe or no curry houses, you can get to the real reason people travel to Eastern Europe, guns and booze.

Yes, I can now testify that firing a pump action shotgun actually really hurts, especially if you have weedy arms and shoulders like me. Don't worry though there will be an arsenal of weaponry to choose from and it won't just be rusting soviet era pieces either. They'll be a smorgasbord of armaments from all the best death dealers in the civilised world, in effect you'll be able to go on a gun tour from tiny James Bond style handguns to indiscriminate assault rifles.

Admittedly the setting for this gun show is a rather menacing old soviet era civic building on the outskirts of town. The grumpy bus driver drops you off outside and simply beckons you through a side door which looks straight out of the film Hostel.

Once you get inside the ominous feeling that this could be the last bit of sunlight you'll ever see doesn't abate as you descend down an endless flight of concrete stairs to a basement in which you are greeted by a prison cell door and a couple of tatty sofa's.

As you sit down, you can hear some faint voices then a noise that can only be described as like a small atomic bomb going off. Silence follows then a gruff squat man opens the heavy door and hands you a clip board, on it is one page of health and safety info and a line for your signature. A British health and safety officer would have a fit, the safety briefing on the gun range was no more detailed.

The strangely Dutch sounding instructor (in reality his role is gun loader) bluntly states there are only two rules, obey his instructions and point down range. I've literally had briefings on how to wear a high visibility jacket last longer.

After you've finished firing off the weapons you get to take the obligatory photos of you attempting to look tough holding an AK. In reality you come off looking like a subpar Anders Brevik wannabe which in the current climate will probably get your door kicked in at 6am by the Anti-Terrorist Branch.

Future indefinite detention aside the whole experience is highly enjoyable and who wouldn't want to fire a PKM Machine Gun Rambo style even if you only have enough ammo for 2 seconds, it's enough believe me.

As with any major Eastern European city there are plenty of places to eat and drink copious amounts of beer and steak at Newcastle prices. The only concern to have is on the way to your chosen house of excess is to make sure the taxi driver doesn't eye up an opportunity to pay for his kids college tuition by charging a fee even a London cabbie would blush at.

This issue neatly sidestepped (or in my case not) you can really enjoy what you all suffered potential DVT for, dirt cheap lager and crazy locals. Yes you may get the occasional pint tasting like it's from a pipe that hasn't been cleaned since Archduke Franz Ferdinand got his comeuppance but overall it'll taste no worse than the water downed version in Weatherspoons.

Many of the bars and clubs have wildly differing areas within them so if you don't feel like looking massively uncomfortable shuffling to European techno you can chill in one of the more relaxed seating areas and just drink it all in.

If you're really lucky and get slightly confused about what bar you're supposed to be heading to you may end up in a karaoke bar where the locals are still belting out the classics, and some bizarre local numbers, at 4 in the morning.

If you've had a good night or even if you haven't, there's no better book end to the night's entertainment than murdering a classic tune in the form of Aerosmith's 'I don't want to miss a thing'. Even if you sound like you've been deaf from birth there will sure to be a local middle aged bespectacled IT consultant on hand to rescue the occasion and bring your night to a glorious finish.

After that the night could potentially take a bad turn when you start chanting 'one more song' at the clearly ready for bed DJ but common sense will definitely prevail when you see the ex cage fighter of a bouncer marching towards you.

Here ends my account of one experience of Budapest, I've clearly missed out loads of other cultural activities like the baths but anyway all you need to do is get on a dirt cheap flight and explore the city for yourself, it's great fun and it beats being stuck in a 2mile traffic jam on the M4.

Thursday 7 June 2012

The Diamond Jubilee - Even the North Koreans Were Cringing by the End

Wow, what a fun packed weekend of festivities that was. We had some boats, in the loose sense of the word, a big Buckingham knees up organised by soon to be Lord our saviour Gary of Barlow and a little service at her local place of worship St Pauls.

If standing around in the cold freezing your googlies off wasn't your bag then you had the pleasure of wall to wall coverage from the Beeb and any other network that couldn't be bothered to string an alternative schedule together.

Come to think of it why any other channel even bothers transmitting during these royal events is beyond me, its ingrained at birth that you must watch a great state occasion on the state broadcaster and if you couldn't give two hoots you just whack on a box set of (Insert current trendy HBO series). Unfortunately for the viewer I think the executives at the BBC understand this all to well hence the decision to turn the Thames Pageant into an extended version of The One Show.

Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of the Queen, I think she carries out her constitutional duties marvellously and she hasn't put a foot wrong in 60 years. I was even on her side when she was copping all that flack over staying in Balmoral when Diana died. The mass hysteria that erupted was just plain weird and the subsequent anger directed at the Queen was reminiscent of Italy after they get knocked out a major tournament.

Anyway I digress but my point is she's a perfect head of state and if we had a vote tomorrow I'd put a cross next to her without a moment's hesitation because let's be honest anyone mad enough to think they and only them should be the leader of a nation of 60 million people basically disqualifies them self on grounds of hubris and delusions of grandeur. The fact she didn't have a choice in the matter is a plus point in our system of government.

This is a fairly rock solid principle of mine that hasn't altered despite my other political convictions changing from one episode of Question Time to the next. Despite this though I felt the birth pangs of Republicanism building up inside me every time a saw a news bulletin or newspaper lecturing me on how I must stop and marvel at the extraordinary accomplishments of our great leader.

Maybe I haven't fully matured but I still have this teenage urge to resist and fight against anything that I'm told repeatedly is brilliant and therefore I must be thankful for. The people of this country appreciate the value of the Queen, they may love her for different reasons but even ardent Republicans like Billy Bragg aren't afraid to voice their admiration for her.

What we don't need is commentators and journalists ramming the point down our throats and please what the hell was that rag tag armada of dinghies and canoes suppose to encapsulate. If it was meant to engender a mass of patriotic fervour then it spectacularly failed on me. All I was reminded of is how pathetic our Royal Navy must now be, I'm assuming we've sent our only decent ship down to the Falklands to protect a few farmers and a load of penguins from a nonexistent Argentinean threat.

Admittedly it was difficult to make out the different types of vessels through the haze of lashing rain but seriously there are Amazonian tribesman who would laugh at the primitive nature of some of the 'ships' on show. At times it looked like a scrapheap challenge amphibious special, I was half expecting the bbc to cut away to Robert Llewellyn interviewing some 16 stone Cornishman on his home made raft as one of the oil drums keeping him afloat starts to break away.

If the pageant had a touch of the North Korean to it then the giant picture of the Royals during the Silver Jubilee really took the rice cake. I mean that thing was ridiculous, even Kim Jong whatever his name is would blush at the sheer scale of it. It was almost Orwellian in its symbolism and magnitude.

Now I'll admit the gig on Buckingham Palace's driveway had some good moments and I'll never miss a chance to see Macca singing Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da but seriously how is Lenny Henry still getting gigs. I'm assuming he must have been funny once but I'm 25 and have been watching too much television since the mid nineties and have never seen him utter a single humorous line. I laughed harder when Charlie boy called the Queen mummy, even his little quip about the comedians was worth a chuckle. Seriously, Len should make enquiries as to who writes Charles's stuff because otherwise he should stick to advertising low quality motels.

I won't mention anything about the service at St Paul's as I'll be honest I'd given up watching by then along with most of the country I suspect. I'm sure it was very dignified and probably one of the more enjoyable parts of the weekend for the Queen. I do wonder if the Queen actually wanted all this hullabaloo, I always get the feeling she's sitting there working out how much the electricity bill will come to and practicing her interested face for when she has to schmooze backstage with JLS.

Yes the Queen is a great symbol of continuity and stability in an ever changing world but surely there are far more unobtrusive ways to celebrate her longevity. One might say a more understated celebration would have been more British rather than the almost American levels of razzmatazz that were on show.

Thursday 31 May 2012

Why Mitt Romney's flip-flopping may turn out to be a political asset

Throughout Mitt Romney's hard slog towards becoming the Republican nominee one criticism pursued him wherever he went and was equally vociferous on both sides of the political spectrum. The issue of course was over Mitt Romney's propensity to mould his views to fit whatever audience or electorate he was facing, otherwise known as flip-flopping.

Hard line conservatives despaired at Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts and the resented the way he was suddenly appearing to show very conservative principles on topics like abortion when there were reams of interviews and statements directly contradicting what he was purporting to now believe.

Liberals and much of the mainstream media saw an open goal and a heavy amount of hypocrisy. They also latched on to the fact that it was conservatives who had initially launched the attacks on Romney therefore covering them from accusations of bias. They were simply reporting on the attacks by conservatives and there's nothing the mainstream media loves more than Republicans attacking their own.

It seems conservatives were willing to ignore Ronald Reagan's golden rule, thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican, as they could not stomach this so called Massachusetts moderate becoming the nominee.  Of course even Reagan didn't stick to this principle throughout his career as Gerald Ford would attest.

While Romney's flip-flopping provided plenty of ammunition to the media and his primary opponents it also had the effect of painting Romney as a politician not wedded to any particular political ideology. Voters could see this was a man who assessed the situations and jobs he was in and was able to mould his positions to fashion the best outcomes possible.

A good example of this was the 2006 healthcare legislation he brought in whilst Governor of Massachusetts. At the time it was widely praised across the country by commentators as a model that could be used as a template for a federal system of healthcare insurance. Indeed Obama and his team clearly took notice and incorporated many of its aspects into the healthcare bill that passed through congress in 2009.

This link between the two bills could clearly not have been predicted by Romney when he passed his legislation but it subsequently became a major headache when repealing Obamacare became a central plank of Republican policy. He was repeatedly hammered by his opponents and harangued by the media to explain how he could support his own bill but not the presidents. His answer was simple but in the end effective, just because something works at state level doesn't mean it should be implemented federally.

This is a logical reasoned argument that most people can accept. Whether they agree with his stance on healthcare is another issue but the idea that his position is the height of hypocrisy and that it shows his inherent weakness as a leader just doesn't hold up.

The malleability of his positions can be highlighted as a strength in fact. Washington politics is deeply divided and compromise has become the dirty word of politics, especially within conservative circles. It seems Congress can only hear the shrill voices on the edges of the parties, as its approval rating has been consistently under 20% for the last two years. This shows the electorate does not want more ideology and dogma in Washington but people who will get things done in a sensible pragmatic way even if that means you have adapt long held policy positions.

As Chris Christie has said there is a wide boulevard in between getting all you want and compromising your principles. Romney has shown he understands how to adapt when faced with a hostile legislature and this is one area where Obama has been especially ineffective. There are valid arguments to be made that the Republican Congress has been overly intransigent but a President must lead and he failed spectacularly to do this when he handed over the healthcare bill to Congress.

The number one issue that will decide the election in November is the economy, as it almost always is. The American electorate is not looking for an ideology to follow but just simply a solution to the mess the country's in. Romney, due to his altering views, has allowed an image to grow of a politician with no concrete ideological beliefs and this could prove to be a major plus in the current climate.

Yes Romney has had to pander to the hard right of the Republican party during the height of the primary battle but his folksy and slightly awkward manner didn't make him sound like an extreme fundamentalist such as Rick Santorum. His delivery and mannerisms give the impression that he is from another era and therefore detached from the modern vitriol that surrounds present day Washington.

This perception can become a plus as it taps into that influential emotion, nostalgia . Non ideological voters who long for a time of low unemployment and pre 9/11 sanity will be drawn to this and could provide the key to Romney being able to create a large enough coalition to take him over the top come November.

Monday 28 May 2012

Afghanistan: It is and always will be a failed state


As the 2014 withdrawal date for American and British combat troops creeps ever closer the rhetoric coming from leading politicians about the great strides that have been made by Afghan forces has increased significantly. In Britain the three major parties have formed a cosy consensus with a steady drip of comments about how well Afghan troops have performed in recent operations and the great leaps forward that have been made in training the Afghan police and army.

Clearly some level of progress has been made but this isn't saying much if you consider they were starting from the bottom. In a sense the only way they could go was up but this still doesn't imply the Afghan state will be able to guarantee security and prosperity once NATO forces leave. In fact even with the current high levels of NATO support, the central government under Hamid Karzai do not hold much influence outside the main urban areas.

Within the countryside, where the majority of the population reside, it is the tribal leaders and councils who govern. In fact the local populace show more loyalty to these tribal leaderships than they do to central government. Even the police struggle to exert influence, preferring to do deals with the local warlords rather than risking conflict by keeping law and order as the central government wants.

This reluctance by the Afghan local branches of government to properly exert its influence in the tribal regions is telling as it shows the true strength and power they really have. The police and army units on the frontline may lack in professionalism and in some cases even courage but essentially it comes down to the fact that they don't feel they are genuinely backed up by the government. This lack of confidence is extremely detrimental to overall health of the state and is unlikely to be resolved any time before 2014.

Most likely the politicians in Washington and London privately accept the futility of the NATO mission, some have even made tentative steps to accept this publicly. Ed Miliband's recent comments on a visit to Afghanistan show that even among the political elite there are serious reservations as to whether the Afghan government will last much beyond 2014. This comment was quickly followed by Miliband declaring his strong support for the 2014 withdrawal plan, which shows how purely political the exit date is and has no bearing on the conditions on the ground.

Some would argue however that NATO should never have gotten involved in nation building and its original mission of defeating Al-Qaeda was completed in early 2002. The subsequent mission creep was born out of the hubris of the time, a belief that America was going to re-shape the world for a new century of dominance.

This was a deeply flawed belief and shows how little politicians at the top had studied their history. It would only take a brief period of research to see how many great powers had tried to tame Afghanistan's various tribes and bring a central order to the country. All failed and suffered great humiliating retreats which scarred the invading nation. One example of this is being explored by Rory Stewart in a new documentary series starting on the BBC.

Nevertheless even people who at the time did understand Afghanistan's brutal history believed advances in technology and modern warfare would allow NATO to be the exception to the rule. For a short period after the initial fall of Kabul there did seem to be hope for a stable Afghanistan. Billions of dollars of aid was poured into the country on regeneration, the problem was much of this did not reach the people who really needed it. The fact remained even though the Taliban had been defeated they had not simply left, they remained living in the same communities they had for generations.

You cannot simply dismiss the Taliban as an evil group who were reviled by every Afghani.  They are as much the people of Afghanistan as anyone else. They have fought invaders of their land since the time of Alexander the Great and will continue to do so long after the last vestiges of NATO have been blown back through the Khyber pass.

The Taliban have not succeeded on their own however, they are a wily bunch who have been willing to join forces with the most unlikely of allies in order to achieve their goals. When the Soviet Union was attempting to impose its will on the country they found a very willing ally in the United States. When the Soviets left and the American support disappeared they found Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist buddies more than willing to fund them financially in return for safe haven.

Both these alliances were friendships of convenience as is the current close relationship they have with elements in the Pakistani intelligence and military communities. This relationship has grown out of the immense amount of paranoia Pakistan directs towards India. Pakistan are willing to accept a brutal, destructive group running Afghanistan just so long as they are their brutal group and not India's.

This attitude by Pakistan shows no sign of abating and if anything the ties are being strengthened the closer we get to the 2014 deadline. Pakistan recognise Hamid Karzai's government will be acutely vulnerable once he is unable to call upon the power of NATO to maintain his governments sphere of influence across the country.

Even if Pakistan could be persuaded that their main security threat is no longer India they still have yet to admit that a relationship exists. The irony is the true threat to the Pakistan state is from internal terrorism being directed from the tribal areas of northern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. The Taliban may have severed most of their ties with Al-Qaeda but there are still individuals within both groups who share information and at times work together.

There are many more factors that could be listed which would highlight the futility of NATO's mission but fundamentally Afghanistan is a country of disparate tribes and peoples who have for centuries been ordered and cajoled by foreign powers to come together as one unified nation state. The British Empire failed and so did the Soviet Union, at some point NATO will face up this but not before more blood and treasure is expended for a mission that since early 2002 has been fundamentally flawed. If this analysis is correct then all we have exerted for the last ten years has been for nothing and serious questions need to be asked of the British and American governments.

Maybe if only half the amount of energy that has been exhausted on constant inquiries on Iraq could be directed towards Afghanistan then maybe we'll develop a proper understanding of this conflict which will hopefully act as a warning for future generations who might be considering an intervention in this most unforgiving land.

Sunday 27 May 2012

Team England: Explaining the stark differences in achievement by the national football and cricket teams


The commonwealth cricket team, sorry I mean England, are straddling the top of the ICC test rankings and despite a tricky winter have the potential to stay there for some time to come. The England football team however are experiencing the lowest level of expectation from the public for many a year and this despite English domestic football coming off the back of arguably the greatest season in its entire history. The explanation for this lack of enthusiasm is down to England's poor record in recent tournaments and the number of times they have come up short. The reasons for this are not, as commonly bemoaned, down to poor managers. The cause is far more deep rooted and lies in who actually exerts all the power in the game.

The power and grip the domestic game and especially the premier league has over the national team has always been there but it has been especially stark since the turn of the millennium.  Alongside this English cricket has also experienced a radical shift in power but in the other direction. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) under its first Chairman Lord MacLaurin, set out to create an elite, professional national team whose players would view success with England as their number one goal.

The idea that success with England would not be the main priority of an England cricketer may sound strange in today's climate but that fact was before the implementation of central contracts playing for your county was the main job of a cricketer. Turning out for England was a bit of a jolly one enjoyed for a few weeks in the summer and during the winter.

There have been many stories told by ex England players of disunity and division in the dressing room during the dark days of the nineties. Players would regularly spend more time checking up on the county scores on ceefax than bothering to watch the team out on the field. This was partly driven by insecurity that was bred from the managements susceptibility to chop and change personnel on a regular basis. Many players were unable to feel like they truly belonged as they knew one bad game could spell the end of their time in the team.

The advent of central contracts alongside Duncan Fletcher's appointment as coach led to major shift in the culture of the team. Playing for England became a centrally contracted players main focus, that was who paid them the majority of their income and that was who they had major legal obligations to. Although financial incentives are not what fundamentally drives a sportsman they clearly have a role to play even if it's only subconscious.

This is where the difference between cricket and football is most stark. Footballers earn the overwhelming majority of their income from their clubs and even the money they do get from turning out for England is voluntarily donated to charity. This shows that there is no financial need to play for their country which contrasts hugely with cricket. County cricketers are paid a fraction of what centrally contracted England players receive. If a player were to lose their central contract with the ECB their living standards would take a severe hit. Now this is not to say this is the sole reason why a cricketer would strive to play at their best for England but also it cannot be discounted as a major incentive in their performance.

Clearly on the flip side financial incentives are not the sole reason for the lack of performance by the football team but it's the mentality that comes from this that is crucial. Whoever has the financial power has ultimate control over a players timetable of activity. The ECB can dictate when a centrally contracted player turns out for their county, this would be unthinkable by the FA and the premier league clubs simply wouldn't accept it. This is all because the premier league, due to its financial strength, has far more power and influence than the FA could ever hope to have. If the ECB feels James Anderson is fatigued or has a slight niggle after the 2nd test against the West Indies, they can tell Lancashire to rest him from their next game. Can you imagine what Alex Ferguson would say if the FA or Roy Hodgson asked him to rest Wayne Rooney from a premier league match. They would be given short shrift and told to go whistle.

Some ex cricketers have bemoaned this practice and believe this has damaged the county game but the counties are so financially depended on the ECB there's really nothing they can do. Also England success filters good will and money down through the game, all the way to the grass roots. The administrators and people who run the counties appreciate this and therefore having been in the main willing to accept the changes that the ECB has asked for. This has meant the main goal in the entire cricket structure is a winning England team, this cannot be said for Football sadly.

It's true county cricket and the premier league are very different beasts but it is telling how different their attitudes seem to be. The impression given by many premier league clubs, especially the top sides,  is one of annoyance when a player is selected for international duty. Their view is that one of their most prised assets, potentially worth millions, is being taken away from them for a couple of weeks or longer during tournaments. In that time there is the very real potential for some harm to come to that asset which could adversely affect the clubs overall performance.

This attitude is understandable but extremely short sighted. A successful England team can only be a good thing for the club sides but their goals and priorities have become so short term they cannot appreciate the long term impact of a poor England team. Yes the Premiership will continue to generate vast amounts of money from media and advertising but football has no god given right to be the national game. More people have been drawn into the game by watching England's past exploits  at summer tournaments than anything else. If England continue to be treated as an after thought by the clubs and players their performances at these tournaments will suffer and we will face real difficulty in even qualifying.

English cricket is certainly on a high and doesn't have the same worries as football but they certainly cannot afford any complacency. The issue of how the ECB treat the Indian Premier League (IPL) in terms of player participation is becoming a real issue and has to be carefully managed. Undoubtedly the financial rewards are huge and you can't begrudge players like Kevin Pietersen from wanting to be involved but the potential for divided loyalties is clear. Other national boards like the West Indies, who lack the ECB's financial muscle, have been unable to stop players competing in the IPL at the expense of international matches.  

Due to the crowded international calendar this issue shows no sign of abating so the ECB will have its hands full in managing player participation in the IPL whilst also maintaining the progress that has been made over the last decade.

Football and Cricket are clearly very different sports but they both have a deep tradition in our sporting psyche and if football wants hold on to that position as a truly national game it could do worse than to study how cricket pulled itself up from the gutter it was in in 1999. That defeat to New Zealand and our subsequent drop to bottom of the world test rankings was the catalyst for change in all aspects of cricket. I wonder how far English football has to fall before a similar revolution is started, my fear is we still have some way to descend before this realisation dawns on the football establishment.