Entente Cordiale by necessity

I was watching the Channel Four news discussion between Peter Mandelson, Britain's Secretary of State for Business, and Christine Lagarde, the French Finance Minister, and for all the disagreements between Britain and mainland Europe on how to get out of our financial mess, there was a rare bon accord between the British and French ministers on one issue - the need to deal with tax havens.



I have to say that Mandelson, who I have never particularly liked since his days as Blair's enforcer pre 1997, is a more than competent Minister and he was refreshingly honest about past fiscal mistakes. Of course he could afford to be as they were all Brown's mistakes and we all know etc etc.... But anyway he didn't duck or hedge and said that the expansive love in Labour had with the free market and minimal controls had proved to be a mistake and lessons needed to be learned. He was insistent that British tax havens like my paternal homeland, the Isle of Man, plus the Channel Islands and other places within the reach of British intervention would be brought to book and disclosure compelled under new international finance rules to be drawn up at the G20 summit next week.



Mme Lagarde nodded enthusiastically and added her own firm support for the similar control of French hideouts like Monaco. I gather the French have already compelled Prince Albert to sign a declaration that the assets of French companies and individuals held in Monaco will be disclosed to the French government.

If all this goes through it is a massive step. It's one which is, of course, overdue and maybe - making virtue out of necessity - it may be the start of a more prudent mind set in terms of government and individuals about finance and savings and not spending money you haven't got. There does seem to be a feeling of urgency that somehow we have to get back to basic prudence in our financial dealings and hurray for that!

As a by product though, it does make me wonder what is to become of the Isle of Man, a place for which, being my father's home and where I had many happy childhood memories, I have a lot of affection. It has long faded as a holiday resort , in which guise it flourished up to the 1960s and has since become a centre of 'tax efficiency' as I was once taught to call it by the insurance company for which I worked. For many years now the TT tourist's motor bikes and old cars have been replaced by Porsches and Mercedes saloons parked outside the new company HQs which have sprung up all over and provided the island with a lot of stable revenue. It seems to have nowhere else to go if, as a result of new legislation, all these advantages disappear.

Sad for the Isle of Man, and its fellow havens, but very necessary and overdue.

Consequences worse than the 'crime'

I feel a little sorry for Jacqui Smith. Given her job, her public profile and the vultures who now await her on the Tory benches, the revelation that her husband added two soft porn films to her expenses claim must be a source of overwhelming embarrassment for her..more in fact than the circumstances demand.



I live in the same cable area and take the same Virgin Media service and I can quite see why two porn films can have been overlooked in that VM don't itemise the movies you watch unless you request them to do so (presumably to protect embarrassed spouses who might have to own up) but it is surely wrong that additional bought movies, porn or otherwise, over and above the basic telecommunications allowance should have been claimed.

No wonder these politicians did not want their expenses published. They must have realised what an impression would be given to the public and, so far, it must be a worse impression even than many had feared. Pigs in the trough.

I am beginning to wonder if Jacqui Smith has a future. Not because of the porn films but because this whole issue of expenses is making her look extremely careless. She claims the flat she shares with her sister as her 'main residence' and then claims on her website that 'she still lives in Redditch with her husband and two children' This clearly to impress local voters but it would be appear slightly deceitful on one side or the other. Either she is cooking the expenses books or lying to the electorate.

Then surely, even if you ARE a busy Home Secretary, you put some time aside to personally vet stuff which is being claimed in your name..in fact PARTICULARLY if you are Home Secretary and given the nature of your job. The fact that either she didn't or she is now wriggling out of a mess of her own making, doesn't say much about her judgment.

And Ministers of the Crown, blatantly lacking good judgment, are not what Gordon Brown needs in the Labour government right now.

The answer to the rules of succession

It seems that all our political parties are united in their agreement that the 1701 Act of Settlement, which confirmed the laws of succession of our Royal Family, are archaic and no longer represent the standards of the 21st century.

And of course they are right. It is ludicrous in this day and age to debar a member of the royal family from the throne if they marry a Roman Catholic. Religious bigotry of this sort has no place in a modern Britain, though one could understand the fears which prompted the law back in the early 18th century. Similarly to suggest that a male child should always take precedence over a female in the rights of succession is likewise archaic. Princess Anne is the Queen's second born but is now only 10th in line to the throne behind Prince Charles and his male children, and other male cousins.



Suggestions are being made by those in the constitutional know that, despite cross party agreement that things should change, nothing will, mainly because of the fear that any such constitutional changes might open up a wider debate on the monarchy within the Commonwealth.

Would that be a bad thing? Would it not be an excellent moment for the nations of the Commonwealth to take a long hard look at their constitutional position and decide whether or not they wish to retain a Monarchy or become a Republic. And that list, of course, should include the United Kingdom.

Iraq enquiry - Catharsis or cop-out?

It has been announced that an official enquiry into the Iraq War will be held 'after July', which is when British combat troops will have effectively left the country. David Miliband has said the government is 'committed to holding a comprehensive enquiry' and, if taken at face value, should be a source of celebration.

But I find the bile rising in my mouth already, sensing the prospect of just further betrayal. From a purely personal point of view, the decision to invade Iraq was the most sickening decision a Labour party of which I had been a member for 40 years had ever taken. It was then I left it. I didn't want to leave it but I felt I had little choice. I couldn't do a Robin Cook and leave the government. Nor was I part of a Constituency which I believed felt as I did. There were members who were as enraged as me and who made the last meeting with Gisela Stuart, our MP a difficult one. But by and large, the Constituency establishment - including the MP - and the Secretary were primarily concerned about backing Blair and screw the morality of the invasion.

I went to London for the protest and joined the million impotent people who this fucking Labour government simply ignored. For the next months and years until the truth was revealed about the absence of real justifications, and deprived of a political focus I watched with anger every time I saw Blair at his most 'sincere' justifying every decision he made.



I have never been so disgusted by politics in my life and it has lingered to this day. Now is there to be a catharsis? Are we to really take the lid off every aspect of the Iraq invasion? Are we to go back to basics, examining the root justifications, testing their weight, examining the evidence of legality and who said who to who? Are we in fact going to come anywhere near making a quasi legal decision about whether the justifications outweighed the negatives, whether we were blatantly lied to in order to appease an American agenda? Are the politicians responsible for prosecuting that war really going to have to answer for it?

My immediate response is - of course not. I have so little faith in this government that I believe it will be just another piece of stage management in order to try and appease the doubters with so many caveats on its scope of enquiry as to make it useless. At the end of the day I fear little would satisfy me except to see that bastard Blair facing an International Criminal Court. But as that ain't going to happen we might as well spend the money on the victims of the war rather than lining the pockets of yet more lawyers.

Have we taken leave of our multi-cultural senses?

The actor, Sir David Jason, has been forced to apologise and some radio station reduced to wetting its knickers in abject distress because the recently knighted actor cracked a 'joke' which involved a play on an Indian sub-continent name. He said 'What do you call a Pakistani cloak room attendant?' Answer: 'Mahatma Coat'



The 'joke' is something from the 1930s, I think I first heard it at primary school back in the 1940s/50s (though it probably said an Indian then as Pakistan was hardly conceived and Mahatma Gandhi had been the Indian Premier) The point is it's a silly play on words like 'Lunchtime o' Booze' the 'Irish' journalist much beloved by Private Eye or the female stone thrower 'Eva Brick'. It is NOT an attack on Pakistani people.

Have we become so frightened of causing offence in this multi-cultural paradise that every single silly joke like this has to provoke a feast of bed wetting? It's not particularly funny..it's too old and corny...but unfunny has never been a reason for apologising for humour. And when you hear some of the really nasty, vicious stuff that goes out on air these days you do wonder what the fuss was about.

Of course Del Boy was misguided in telling the joke -not because it IS offensive but because, in the current climate, there was bound to be somebody claiming it was. That's just the way of the world. Maybe had he said an Indian cloakroom attendant he would have got away with it because I suspect half the panic and walking on egg shells is because Pakistan is Muslim.

I don't like racist jokes..and I mean those which seek to demean and undermine another person's race and culture in the way Bernard Manning used to do, for example. But for heaven's sake, to make such a fuss about this type of pun hardly shows a society at ease with itself. And I don't believe most of our asian citizens would have found this offensive - only people with an agenda who deliberately look for something offensive in order to make some political point.

Now they're taking the piss!

I make no apology for briefly returning to the issue of MP's expenses since it has been revealed today that Tony McNulty, the Work Minister, has claimed £60,000 on 6 years for a 'second home' HIS PARENTS HOUSE, eleven miles from his own.

Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee for standards in public life, has said that most MPs simply do not have the mind set that these expenses are intended to help with a hardship but, instead, believe they are a deserved 'perk' of the job. How has it got to that? One of the criteria supposed to be used is 'Could my claim damage the reputation of Parliament?'

Is there any doubt? McNulty when quizzed said he was 'compliant'. What does that mean? Presumably that he followed the dotted 'i's and crossed 't's and decided he was eligible for a bit more brass without any risk. It would appear that he doesn't even stay there. Well why would he when his own home is so near? But he uses it as a 'base'.



This simply smacks of profiteering. These guys are supposed to be setting an example and it's quite clear that they are incapable of doing so. And there is no leadership from the top. It would seem that the British tradition of putting responsible men and women on trust has failed miserably.

Clearly new and swingeing rules need to be brought in to deal with this. If these people are going to behave like irresponsible children who see only a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, then they deserve to be treated like it.

The maudlin, almost obscene, Jade Goody industry

Yesterday a young woman aged 27 died of cancer. This is sad in itself. As sad as the similar deaths of thousands of young men and women in this country who die prematurely without having had any kind of a life. Young people have died from disease, road accidents, even, sometimes, in battle. Most die grieved only by their nearest and dearest, their deaths unknown to the rest of us. The deaths make an obituary, at best, in the local newspaper, paid for by the family, to inform any one who cares.

This particular young woman was not particularly blessed with any great qualities which made her stand out as someone to admire or emulate. She came from a difficult family background, her father a career criminal, her boyfriend a man with criminal convictions. Her life, in fact, was similar to that of many throughout the United Kingdom and her contribution to the quality of British life hardly consequential.

She had the good fortune to be selected for the 'Big Brother' reality show for which she was primarily noted for a racist attack on an Indian actress, cavorting naked and being completely ignorant of the geography of England. But such are the perverse standards which we now apply to those considered worthy of admiration, that this young woman was elevated to celebrity status and subsequently became a multi millionaire through product endorsements and good marketing.



Then her short lived but successful rise to the top of the Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame tree hit a tragic finale. She was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Tragic for Jade Goody, for of course it is she, but a heaven sent opportunity for the maudlin, mock sentimental, money-grubbing gossip and celebrity industry which has grown up around her. Every moment of her declining days and weeks has been lovingly captured by the newspapers and gossip magazines and the cash registers rattled merrily as each aspect of her chemotherapy, her death bed marriage and now, her death will have been lapped up by an avaricious public which seems to have lost all sense of perspective.

And now - I know I shouldn't be irritated but I am - it was announced that the Prime Minister is leading the tributes. Why, for goodness sake? This is the woman who embarrassed him on a visit to India by her ill timed racist abuse of an Indian actress? As I said at the beginning, any death of a young person is to be regretted and this one is no exception but what on earth has she done to be the focus of Prime Ministerial tribute? She has not been an ambassador for Britain in any field at all - arts, entertainment etc - which would be worthy of the Prime Minister's notice. It's not really the PM's fault. Politicians have always made sure they acknowledge popular culture in order to show they are not too removed from the peasantry, though few can be fortunate enough to get Tony Blair's 'Princess Di' moment. 100 years ago it might have been a music hall artist, 50 years ago a rock star. It is the goal posts which have moved. Miss Goody was simply a 'celebrity' - famous for being famous - spawned by this amazing growth in reality television which is creating a whole new sphere of heroes and heroines.

There is no doubt that Channel 4 came up with a brilliant concept which has captured the nation - to take the so-called average Briton off the street, show him and her in natural habitat - drinking, swearing,screwing, throwing up - and make us all relate to them. It has worked wonders, no doubt, though I detest the whole format. But it seems to have produced a very strange concept of who is worthy of elevation in the public eye and also a prosperous industry of parasites in the form of agents and media attention which feeds on the publicity.

In this case the hyenas are literally feeding on the corpse - and it's a development I find very, very hard to stomach.

Surely the time is right for a compassionate rethink?

Patricia Hewitt MP, has called for a change in British law allowing terminally ill, fully compos mentis adults to be allowed, free of legal penalty, to end their lives in Swiss clinics. I personally would go further and allow British clinics to offer a similar service but such is the opposition to assisted suicide that such a proposal is light years away.

So let's walk before we run. Ms Hewitt's compassionate appeal is very likely to fail to gain sufficient support because of the deeply rooted aversion to suicide within our culture. But why? Our Judeo-Christian culture has long taught an abhorrence of suicide as a grave sin against God so there are deep reasons why our legal attitudes reflect this. The Jewish and Roman Catholic faiths, particularly, view suicide as mortal sins.



But we are now in the 21st century and, without intending to offend anybody, I don't believe that modern government should necessarily reflect ingrained religious beliefs when so many people don't believe in God anyway. It seems to me there is a good case for a humanitarian rethink on this entire topic. Why is it necessary for a man or woman stricken with cancer, motor neurone disease or some life destroying disease to be propped up for maybe another decade with expensive drugs and treatments when that is simply not what they want? Who is made to feel better by this legal obligation? Whose consciences are satisfied? Probably not the patient who has reached a point where every day is a humiliating, embittered journey of survival possibly unable to move or even eat without help.

It is, of course, clear that suicide is so much the ultimate irreversible decision that safeguards have to be put in place to ensure that people whose minds are temporarily disturbed by broken love affairs etc are not allowed to flit to a clinic to end it all, but safeguards and a consultative process involving counselling physical and mental health over a period of months should enable a recommendation to be made with a reasonable certainty that the potential suicide has thought over all their options and has made a rational, clear choice that life is no longer worth living. That seems to me to be a kind and responsible social approach, not one which should incur legal penalty.

Ms Hewitt has my support and, even though her initiative seems doomed to fail this time, maybe it will start a thought process which will result in a more enlightened view before too long. I can but hope.

Thank LABOUR for the National Health Service

I have, from my earliest involvement in politics, been a passionate supporter of Britain's National Health Service. Oh it has its critics and some of the criticism is justified, but as an institution and an ideal it stands as one of the greatest testaments to the Labour Government of 1945-50 and to Aneurin Bevan in particular. It has become such a rock on which the British people depend that our 'socialized medicine' as the Americans call it, has become a precious national element which the Tories dare not destroy though there have been Tory administrations that would dearly like to have done. They have tried to weaken it by encouraging the development of more private health plans but nothing has shaken public determination to support its most treasured possession - with all its flaws.



But apart from my philosophical support for the NHS, I have over the last 12 years had practical reason for gratitude for its existence. I suffer from ulcerative colitis, a disease which cannot be cured, but can be kept largely in remission by the application of some expensive drugs which need to be taken every day of my life. I have often wondered, now that I am over 60,and not exactly being a millionaire, how I would have managed in the United States and what the cost of my health insurance would have been to provide the care I get now.

And some times that disease flares up, fortunately rarely, but this week has been just such a time. And then it can leave you feeling like death and in need of even more supplements than the expensive staple diet of drugs I take already. At a time when I was expecting friends from abroad and wondering how on earth I was going to cope, I was in my doctor's surgery at 8am being examined and prescribed a cocktail of drugs to calm the condition down. Within hours the medication had left me feeling 1000% better - it is a disease which brings you down remarkably low but with an application of, in particular, steroids, can magically improve your condition in a matter of hours.

But the drugs must cost a fortune and again I wondered how I would manage if I lived in a country which purely operated on a health insurance basis. For here I get the treatment I need, when I need it, and, being over 60, I get everything free of charge.

Now I know nothing is free and that other people in the form of taxation, are paying for my health. But in the many years when I was working, happy, carefree and free from illness, I was paying for the treatment of other people through taxation - and I never resented a penny of it. Because that's what a welfare state should provide. Never mind this right wing garbage about 'state control' and 'nannying'. It's about looking at the priorities of your nation and taking care of them. That's what good socialist government is about. That's what we had in 1945. Sometimes I could weep.

Schadenfreude can be so fulfilling

Just for one day, last Saturday, I was a Liverpool fan. At least I was by the time their third goal went in at Old Trafford and it became clear that this was one game Manchester United were not going to rescue at the death. By the time Liverpool scored the fourth I was howling like a loon. It was just so perfect. To be hammered out of sight on your own ground, particularly, is never an edifying experience for any team but for this team of all the talents in particular, a team which had almost begun to believe in its own invincibility, the experience must have been totally humiliating.

That the opposition was Liverpool only added further salt in the wounds and I was over the moon with delight. Why do I dislike Manchester United so much? In rational terms it's a hard question to answer. Why do football fans, apart from a passionate love of their own team, make very black and white choices about whether they hate other clubs. Because to most fans, some opposition clubs are more tolerable than others for reasons not altogether clear - but it's astonishing how often Manchester United top the hate lists.

I believe it stems, oddly, from a tragedy - the 1958 Munich air disaster in which United lost so many players and staff. At that time, they had just become a very successful club, a wonderful young team with a good manager, with none of the modern 'luggage'. The whole nation was united in its sympathy for the club at that time. It is since that date that Manchester United became an institution not a football club.

From the horrors of Munich and the aura which then surrounded the Club, Manchester United became a 'brand' rather than a football club and began to draw support from everywhere in the world, thanks to some very effective marketing. Now they rival Real Madrid as perhaps the best known Club in the world, and certainly, along with Real, the most prosperous. Along with that went an image of football 'royalty' which removed Manchester United from the tradition of local tribal support which has always driven the English game and put them on a football pedestal. It didn't take long then, of course, for other clubs - and their fans - thirsting to knock them off that plinth and restore them to mere mortality.

I'm sure one of the factors in perpetuating this delight at seeing United receive the football equivalent of a custard pie in the face is Sir Alex Ferguson. Good manager he has undoubtedly proved over the years, but Jeez, what a petulant prima-donna! He has waged a four year no-speaking war with the BBC over a report they did suggesting he was making dubious financial gains from the activities of his son and now has refused to speak to Sky Sports after the defeat to Liverpool - blaming the broadcaster for the timing of the match - and presumably thus to United's defeat.



How can a highly paid manager behave like a spoilt kid in this fashion and get away with it? Because, say people in the football world, he is the manager of Manchester United. How does he get away with criticising referees in the way he does without penalty? For the same reason.

The club is arrogant and so is its manager. So it was a delight to sit in a pub on Saturday and, for just one day at least, glory in a Liverpool victory so comprehensive that Sir Alex must have felt he had been dropped into a cold bath.

Now I hope Liverpool can overhaul the points deficit and win the title at the death. That would be the ultimate poke in the eye for the surly Scot!

Ever more cynical about politicians

My Labour M.P. has sent me - for the second time - a letter and a questionnaire telling me how sincerely she wants to open up a debate on immigration. It is, she says, an honest and open attempt to engage the public on an issue of national importance ahead of the government's impending legislation. The questionnaire is presented as a series of options, purportedly allowing an unbiased and free choice of responses, though clearly angled towards an acceptance of the government's position. But at least it does give options

Then she spoils the facade with a PS. 'This is not about asylum seekers," she writes. "It is about economic migrants. People genuinely fleeing persecution will always be welcome in the UK."



Aha. So by implication our minds have been made up for us. Let's forget this attempt at democratic involvement. This is simply an attempt to rubber stamp her own beliefs on an issue she believes is a vote-winner.

If the voters of my area are to be canvassed so earnestly on immigration, why not on other areas of government policy? Let's have a letter on what we should do about alcohol consumption, the Criminal Justices Bill - which certainly had a few contentious anti-human rights elements . And why didn't she consult us on the invasion of Iraq? Apart from a few pockets, my neck of the woods is hardly an area where immigration is a major source of social problem.

The truth is that the next General Election is going to be difficult for the Labour Party. In some areas - and mine is possibly high on that list - it is going to be damn near impossible. So what better to try and bolster support than an issue on which you can attract the 'send-the-bastards-home' brigade to your camp, and point them to areas of government policy which will have their tails wagging.

I really have become sick of politicians jumping on a bandwagon and pretending they are doing it for reasons of deep social concern and a desire to involve the electorate. I remember the days when the Labour Party had some sense of principle - or was it just always better in the 'good old days' ?

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words

(Acknowledgements to Peter Brooks and 'The Times')

President Obama and a few niggling doubts

I think it is fair to say that most of Europe has welcomed the arrival of President Barack Obama as a man of vision, of refreshing ideas, an articulate man, too, who is a splendid orator able to get his convictions and ideals across convincingly.

It is recognised that the President has taken office at one of the toughest times in recent history and there is much goodwill flying in his direction and hopes that his Presidency will be a landmark one for all the right reasons.



There is no doubt that the President's aims are not just ambitious but daring. There are many in his own party now more than a little nervous about the amount of money he intends to spend to force America out of recession. So no one can doubt his political courage.

But, of course, it takes more than a crusading spirit and a set of convictions to be a successful President as Jimmy Carter, for one, found to his cost. You need to have an organisation in place which effects your decisions smoothly and effectively.

And that - at the moment - seems to be Obama's problem.

In the first few weeks of his Presidency he lost one key appointee after another, mainly due to some personal scandal, hitherto undetected. OK there may be a few glitches when you start the job, though hopefully not as many as Mr Obama has faced, but at some point your machinery has to start running smoothly.

Now, however, it has been revealed that the US Treasury Department is more or less being run single-handed, by the Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, and there are still jobs to be filled for SEVENTEEN deputy officials to help carry the workload. The G20 summit starts in London in three weeks time and, according to 'The Times' British officials are privately very worried that the Americans are not up to speed on key elements of the talks and may not be before the summit begins. That would be pretty disastrous as the Americans are, naturally, one of the most important players

.

People are declining posts in the US Treasury for 'personal reasons' and there is a growing fear that some of this may be due to a concern, even among Democrats, about the thrust of the President's fiscal policy, and that when, as they fear, it goes wrong they will be left carrying the can.

Whatever the cause, Mr Obama needs to dedicate himself, for a few weeks at least, to ensuring that his staff are in place and that the visionary approach he has set out for the future of America is not undermined by a lack of administrative resources to implement it.

Good day for Gordon

It was good to hear Gordon Brown so well received yesterday by both houses of the US Congress - though it was noticeable that his call to resist protectionism was heard in respectful silence rather than enthusiasm - but all in all he got some exposure in the United States and at least the Americans now know who they are dealing with rather than 'the guy who replaced Tony Blair'

Of course it is window-dressing to some extent in that it provides Mr. Brown with an opportunity to be statesmanlike in front of a friendly audience and a good speech can't do his ratings in this country any harm. That's not to say I think it did his ratings that much good either, and certainly didn't much affect the British perception of the Labour government. But let's be fair, it was a good day for him and he deserves the favourable press coverage.



I do, however, wish British leaders, when addressing American politicians, would stop harping on about 'the special relationship'. It makes me wince every time I hear it because it sounds so desperate somehow. The British need the relationship to be special to retain some sort of illusion that we have some power and influence in DC when events have shown this to be pure self delusion. I'm sure the Americans take a deep breath and listen politely whenever this phrase is used, and feel slightly compromised by it. Successive Presidents have paid lip service to it out of politeness and then treated us just like any other outsider with an opinion. So this is my appeal to all current and future British leaders. Say what you have to say to the Americans and make them respect you for what you offer. Don't cling to this cloying 'special relationship' appeal which exists in the minds of one party only - if it exists at all.

The day cricket became a political weapon

It is grimly ironic that yesterday I wrote a post suggesting that carpet pitches could be choking the life blood out of cricket, never thinking for one second that, the following day, a more shocking and tragic method would be found to kill cricketing tours, certainly to Pakistan for the forseeable future.

The gunmen who shot up the Sri Lankan cricket team bus this morning, killing six policemen and injuring seven players, have made sure of that. Which of course was almost certainly one of their aims. To undermine the confidence of the Pakistan authorities and to bring home the message that no one is safe in the most dramatic way



It's not the first time, of course, that sportsmen have been used as targets for an assassination and everyone remembers the tragic Munich Olympics in which so many Israeli athletes were killed. But there was a difference. The Israelis represented the sporting ambassadors of the very nation with which the gunmen bore a grudge. Although it's not yet clear who was responsible for the Lahore shootings they bore a similar stamp to the Mumbai killings some months earlier so we can probably assume an Islamic fundamentalist group was responsible and the Sri Lankan team were simply a high profile target with which to make a point. It is doubly sad that Sri Lanka stood in for India, who withdrew from the tour because of the Mumbai shootings, and this was their reward.

Pakistan is becoming a major problem. It is already being described as a 'failed state' for there seems to be no social and political cohesion within the country which can stop these extremists making it their home. What the next step is, politically, is anyone's guess. But the world of cricket has suffered a blow for which it was totally unprepared.

Batting their way to a boring finale

One of my favourite loves is the game of cricket and I have long argued against the jibes of non cricket-lovers that the game is boring and worse, ridiculous, when it can go on for 5 days and there is no result. Ah, I have argued but it's not just the result that matters. It's the skilful appreciation of the conditions, to know the strength of your batting and bowling, to know when to declare and put the other side in, to time a run chase etc etc - knowing full well that my sceptical friends, here and abroad, would not believe a word of it.

I have to say that the game between the West Indies and England, just ended in Barbados, made my defence very shaky. It is a measure of my confidence in the England team at present than when they were able to declare at 600 for 6 wickets, I thought the pitch must be a carpet on which the West Indoes would do almost as well, batting second. In fact they did a damn sight better making an incredible 794 for 9 declared and virtually ensuring that the game was drawn, England making certain of that by batting safely today.

But are games like this going to safeguard the future of test cricket? Yes it was wonderful to see Ramnaresh Sarwan score 291 and his batting partner young Denesh Ramdin score 166 , his first test century but games like this are pointless and simply add fuel to the fire of critics who see no point in a game which is simply a feat of endurance where it becomes clear pretty early on that it will simply fizzle out into a draw despite all the batting heroics.





The West Indies, in particular, while wonderful contributors to the high scoring will be one of the major victims if cricket gets too many Tests like this. Youngsters in the West Indies are not playing cricket as they once did, instead turning to baseball as a more exciting game which gets a result. The talent the West Indies once had, when they dominated the world game is no more - and its unlikely to return.

Pitches have to be prepared which produce a better game between bat and ball than this. OK one of the problems could well be very average bowling attacks on both sides but the incredibly flat pitch with hardly any deviation for the bowlers, certainly didn't help. Somehow cricket needs to get the crowds back all over the world - and games like this one will not help!!