No gold medals in ethics for the Commonwealth Games

After years of planning and months of controversy, the 19th Commonwealth Games are now underway in New Delhi. What are the Commonwealth Games? The Commonwealth itself is an intergovernmental group of 54 states, which were once owned by the British Empire; the Games are without doubt another over-priced, pretentious event for the sporting elite to compete in.

Once again the financial and human cost of holding these grand competitions is over looked by the world. The financial expense of holding such an event can be catastrophic for growing countries, as billions of dollars are drained from the state, so pigeon-chested nations can welcome the world to the doorstep of another over-budgeted sporting competition. It has become the track-race equivalent of 'keeping up with the Joneses'; anything you can do, we can do better – the nuclear arms race of athletics.

The Chinese spent $33 billion on holding the 2008 Olympic Games. A sporting village was erected and an airport terminal built for the specific event; just short of half a million people were employed to assist in running the show.

The human impacts of the Olympic Games were kept highly secret from the rest of the world. Some 1.5 million Beijing residents were evicted from their homes for the development of the competition. Arenas such as the celebrated Birds Nest were erected for a few weeks of sport. Now left for the rust and cobwebs, over a million Beijing evictees are still feeling the effects of the Olympics.

The New Delhi Commonwealth Games 2010 have done exactly the same by global chauvinism and new economic flaunting. Two weeks ago, photos of children as young as seven emerged showing them carrying hammers and buckets to help the construction workers behind schedule. Human Rights activists in India tried to have the Commonwealth Games called off as thousands of residents were forcefully evicted for development and workers were employed without being supplied with safety equipment. Some escort agencies drafted in girls from other Indian cities to supply Delhi with the demand in prostitution – all in the name of sport.

The 2004 Olympic Games held in Athens, were tainted by a controversial death record. 14 builders from Eastern Europe and Asia died due to widespread evidence of poor safety conditions and little or no organisation during the construction of the Olympic village. The Greek Construction Workers' Union believes the unofficial number could have been around 40 deaths in total. One person died when Sydney held the Olympics in 2000 and 2 people died during the construction of the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona.

Arguably, international sport has become bloated by national pride and global insecurity. The displacement of humanity due to sport is perhaps second only to war with an estimated 2 million people shifted across 2 decades for Olympic stadiums alone.

The next sporting event to grip the world will be the 2012 Olympic Games held in London. £9.3 billion paid out by you and me. Later next week on October 20, George Osborne will announce the results of the ‘comprehensive spending review’ with cuts set to be deeper than those committed by Thatcher. The austerity measures will affect us all, one way or another. Osborne will announce up to £82 billion worth of public spending cuts. Blowing nearly £10 billion on a two week sporting event seems utterly fatuous with the current economic climate. The Olympic media centre in Stratford is costing the tax-payer over £308 million alone; that’s £4 for every person across Great Britain.

Holding a sporting event has arguable become the financial indicator of boastful nations bringing the world to its realm. Do I want gold medals – yes, do I want Great Britain to join the list of sporting hosts struggling to foot the bill of taking on such a colossal commitment – no. With an empty piggy bank and an Olympic receipt still needing to pay, I truly believe England should pull out of the bid to host the FIFA World Cup 2018, which will be announced in December.

Clegg's one way ticket to oblivion

We all remember Clegg Mania back in May. The infection spread around the country quicker than greased lightening. We’re 5 months down the line and only now are the victims infected by Clegg fever feeling sick. The coalition government for the Liberal Democrats could prove to be a short-term glory for a long-term suicide.

Liberal support has depleted drastically from 23% to 15% since the general election, as the party trades left wing values in favour of harsh Tory policies, which could see Liberal Backbenchers running open armed to the Opposition. The five Lib Dems in the Cabinet will stay. You can’t blame them for grabbing a career progressing opportunity, which they never expected.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander – the Liberal Democrat in charge of the spending review – backs the pace and intensity of the cuts set out by the Tories. Before the election Danny Alexander said 'that cuts this year shouldn’t be made, so Great Britain doesn’t end up in the same state as Greece.' On March 13, Nick Clegg also said that ‘merrily slashing cuts now is an act of economical masochism.’

At the Party Conference today in Liverpool, Nick Clegg tried to persuade the delegates and the rest of the country that the planned cuts are fairer due to a Liberal political influence. On the coalition relationship between the two parties Clegg said: "If the Liberal Democrats had not gone into coalition, the consequences for the party would have been worse and the benefit for the country would have been fantastically diminished."

The weakest section of Clegg's speech was his Margaret Thatcher-style comparison between the finances of a household and the finances of a nation. He called the deficit 'a grave challenge,' but he said nothing about the other grave economic challenge facing Britain, namely a potential return to recession, or a period of prolonged economic weakness, as a result of the scale and speed of the Coalition's spending cuts.

Overall, it was a confident performance from the Deputy Prime Minister, but serious questions were left unanswered. Though Clegg outlined the logic of the coalition well, many of his MPs and activists will be left wondering how they will fight the next election on a distinctive platform. The Liberal Democrat Leader noted that there are '1,690 days' until the next election, with the unspoken message that there is time for the party to recover in the opinion polls.

Nick Clegg has aided the Tories in deep and painful cuts in public spending which will profoundly affect you and me. The Liberals should expect to be punished mercifully when the consequences of assisting David Cameron in his vast, drastic spending regimes embrace Great Britain.

I thought Clegg was made of good things. He came to light with the ability to stand firmly against David Cameron and may have done exceptionally well at the next general election. He will now go down with his ship. He came to Cameron’s rescue at the hour of need and has now dug a deep hole for the Liberal Democrats, which may now be near impossible to clamber out of.

Why I love David Cameron - regardless of politics

Pleasing everybody in politics is impossible, yet every politician promises they can- and will- when the beginning of a new parliamentary term is in sight. This year the Conservative Party did otherwise, or shall we say David Cameron did.

He promised cuts across all aspects of public spending and openly predicted an ominous Conservative era. We were told by Cameron that the age of New Labour was over, and the notion of ‘Big Government’ was a style of politics not fit for a country looming in mounting debt. The country was then hit with political buzzwords such as tightening-belts, double-dip recession, overspending and Cameron’s favourite: ‘Big Society.’

Mr Cameron’s campaigning racked up hundreds of miles as the ‘vote for change’ bus visited all the key areas around the UK. Interviews improved, leadership debates took place, Clegg mania began and ‘bigots’ were allocated. By the time Election Day arrived, a ferocious David Cameron was as strong, confident and bold as ever.

It had worked. Well, kind of. Labour hadn’t received enough votes to stay in control of the Country and the Tories hadn’t gained enough seats in the Commons to form a full government. Cameron hadn’t quite done it. A week later- and a very long story cut short- we had our full government, which consisted of a Conservative, Lib Dem coalition. Cameron, regardless of his non true blue government was now the Prime Minister.

Cameron’s primary plan was to replenish the Country’s piggy-bank and keep ‘useless’ government spending as low as possible.
Politics is forever open to scrutiny and no position takes a battering like our Prime Minister. How has Cameron performed since our Majesty invited him to form a new government back in May? Are we actually better off with our hoodie-hugging big society, or are we missing the realm of Gordon Brown’s New Labour government?


The Tony Blair era is now a distant memory in British politics. The charismatic, fresh and auspicious New Labour is now left in the previous decade as the Tories and Liberal Democrats progress and lead the Country through difficult times. The success of the Labour party in 1997 was lead by the captivating personality of Tony Blair. His words were credulous and his manners were warming. Blair was a real leader. Labour is now looking for their new chief as Gordon Brown handed his resignation to the Queen back in May, which adversely lead to the party becoming the opposition in the Commons. Gordon Brown struggled in the spotlight, the spotlight Tony Blair glowed within.

Ed and David Miliband, Dianne Abbott, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham are all hoping to become the next leader of the Labour party which will be announced on the 25th September 2010. The polls are predicting that David Miliband will be victorious and lead the Labour party to the next general election in 2015. Miliband is a very passionate and energetic politician with real Labour qualities, but does he actually have the strength and rigorous persistence to take on David Cameron as the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

The leadership qualities of David Cameron are infallible to the public eye. He holds the party with a firm grip. David Miliband looks good on the international stage but his tone and attitude seems all a bit geeky. Labour needs more than anything to have a Blair/Obama type leader to take on the mighty Cameron. Its early days to predict Cameron’s popularity at the end of his parliamentary term, but knowing his determination and vitality, the leader of the Labour party will need to pull something out-of-the-bag to be back in business.

Today at Prime Ministers Questions, David Cameron showed why he loves his job so much. Unafraid to speak his mind and definitely not lacking the confidence at the dispatch box, Mr Cameron gave a strong and flawless performance, regardless of his answer to the questions. Time and time again we watched Gordon Brown, all baggy eyed, stand to address the Commons with a stuttered response and nervy attitude.

It would be naïve to believe it’s been a flawless term so far for David Cameron. As I stated before, ‘you can’t please everybody in politics.’

Support for David Cameron's Conservatives is down to 39%, only two points ahead of Labour, when the opposition party hasn't even yet elected its new leader. The Lib Dems have dropped to 14%. Crucially, the coalition is losing the argument about its central programme of cuts, even before it has announced them, let alone started carrying them out.

The latest Populus polling shows three-quarters of the public oppose both the scale and speed of the planned cuts. That also reflects a growing weight of economic opinion that slashing spending now risks deepening the threat of economic stagnation or a double dip recession which would widening the deficit.

It was also good news for Cameron and his fellow Tories today as it was announced that unemployment fell 8,000 to 2.47 million in the three months to July and the UK economy grew by 1.2% in the second three months of 2010. The figure marks a small upwards revision from the 1.1% initially estimated and represents the fastest quarterly expansion since 2001.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg are still walking through the very early stages of running a country. I feel very sure a greyer Tony Blair and an older looking Gordon Brown will tell you, that time can take its toll.

Swine Flu, Millenium Bug and the recession... the news says you have no chance

Convincing broadcaster Katie Derhum opened today’s ITV News at 1.30 with the horrifying line “another victim on anti-social Britain.”At first thought, the line is frightening and chilling and who’d stop anyone grabbing their children and making a frantic get-a-way through Dover. But once again, is this a sign of the times or just more terrifying news agenda set by elitist editors and journalists?

Swine flu is a perfect example of media fear. The BBC reported in April 2009, that up to 40 percent of humans maybe infected within the next six months. In July the same year, the Guardian released figures to show that up to 65,000 people may die, and the Telegraph also reported that there could be 100,000 new cases of swine flu across Britain every day. And then we were bombarded with information, statistics, phone numbers, websites and hand-gel!

So what’s the latest on swine flu? Well unzip your biochemical germ-free suit and read these contrasting facts. January saw only 124 patients in hospital across the UK with the virus and the latest figures show that swine flu has only reached a tenth of people of what the common flu did this winter. The NHS swine flu helpline became obsolete in February after calls depleted from 40,000 a week to lower than 5,000.

The Millennium Bug was an unprecedented and ominous threat which spread around the globe. Scientists, Politicians and media bodies promised detrimental effects when the ticking time bomb of 2000 began. We were told that planes would fall from the sky, hospital equipment would have the adverse affect and people started looking at James Cameron’s Terminator as a retrospective documentary of the future. What actually happened when we entered our new millennium? In Australia two bus ticket machines failed to dates tickets correctly, 150 slot machines in Delaware USA stopped working and most frightening of all, a evacuation alarm sounded at a nuclear power-station in Japan. The cost of the Y2K bug was estimated at around $300 billions.

Exacerbating the news isn’t anything new. HIV and Aids is still a prolific problem for both the UK and the world, but to date only 18 thousand people have died in this country since the outbreak. The news was dominated in the late 80’s with reports that over a million people would die from Aids before 1990. Controversially, the government released the inapt warning “wear a condom or die of ignorance.”

In 2008 the head of Global Battle against Aids, Dr De Cock explained that “all that hysterical fear-mongering about Aids spreading among the sexed-up western youth was a pack of lies.”

Another example of scaremongering includes the 1988 salmonella panic. Mouthy Conservative Edwina Currie, frightened the nation by saying thousands may die from eating eggs. Then in 1996 the greatest food scare of all took over the nation. 4.4 million cows were slaughtered and the Government's chief scientist John Pattison announced that the human death toll from CJD caught by eating beef could within a few years reach 500,000.

The news has a way of creating buzzwords which become used by all media outlets. How many times have you heard these phrases- War on terror, credit crunch, the Big Freeze, Broken Britain, etc.

I’m not saying we should deny the news or refuse advice from journalist, politicians and scientists as being cynical could have the opposite effect. But maybe its time to be skeptical and make rational decisions from what we read, see and hear.

But as far as this blog goes, trust me, I’m a journalist.

Charles proves we've lost our passion with our Royals

The videos show it all. Streets lined with patriotic Brits wearing tri-coloured hats and waving the Union Jack franticly, as they anxiously anticipate the arrival of a Monarch. The pictures are full of pride and high spirit as the Queen’s jubilee of 1977 takes place.

Today was the day Prince Charles and Camilla arrived in Stoke-on-Trent. I found out about the visit by a press release sent to us regarding his tour of the city. Reporting on a different story caused me to coincidently walk past the city's Council office, the Civic Centre, where a small audience had gathered. Police had blocked off all the roads surrounding the building, which caused large traffic-jams and delays around the town. Security and a large entourage had taken over the street and were barking orders at the pedestrians to make sure they sounded official down the earpieces connecting the prudish Bouncers.

The audience of around 40 were eagerly waiting with digital cameras and video phones aimed at the door, as they chose to see our possible future King through a viewfinder rather than embrace a once in a lifetime chance of greeting a Royal. Then it happened. The sound of the photographer’s camera was the initial giveaway to Charles leaving the building, and heading onto the streets. Expecting to hear a roar of patriotic chanting and vigorous applauding; I paused in my tracks to engage in an auspicious moment of respect and unity. I was wrong.

Prince Charles walked out of the building to one Union Jack on his left and a feeble old lady waving a small sandcastle sized St George in front of me. A small group began to cheer but stopped after a few seconds. The eminent Prince looked happy. He held a smile I’d seen on the television; a smirk glued onto the face of somebody who spends their existence in front of a camera. A few people clapped the Prince, myself included. I looked around to see why nobody was applauding. Had I missed him curse the crowd before I got there? Had Prince Charles promised to exit the Civic Centre wearing a white tux, holding two white tigers? I thought not.

Then it came to me why nobody was clapping and cheering. Around seventy-five percent of the spectators were clutching onto mobile phones and camera; using anything to capture the moment, not psychologically, but as tangible evidence of the day they saw Prince Charles. But why? Why can’t they leave it to the press to prove Prince Charles was in Stoke-on-Trent? Why couldn’t they take a photo and embrace the moment that the next Monarch of England was right before their very eyes.

A lady, and what looked like her partner, walked behind me moaning. “Prince, he’s no different to any of us,” she barked load enough for the surrounding spectators to hear. She wasn’t even looking in the direction of our Royal successors. Why was Stoke behaving so negatively towards our culture, our Sovereignty, our Prince?

Prince Charles went over to speak and to greet a few spectators on his right who were watching behind metal barriers. People were talking to him whilst others were leaning over others shoulders to aim a camera in his face and grab a picture to show how close they were to him. It was extremely awkward to watch. It looked impertinent and clumsy.

Charles and Camilla returned to the car and waved to the crowd before getting in and driving off with an entourage larger than the horde of patriots.

I left confused by the whole experience. I couldn’t believe the response shown to the Prince of Wales. It seemed people were too eager to have photos of the Prince to show others than to actually see him themselves. Maybe the photos will have some importance when published on Facebook later in the day? Maybe that was the aim?

After the saga, I went into Sainsbury’s to buy some dinner; I was still thinking about the whole thing. I went to pay with cash but felt too interested in the note I was about to hand over. I felt obliged to keep hold of it, so I paid with card and replaced the note back into my wallet. I looked at the note when I returned to my flat. I was thinking about how many of these sheets of paper exist, all over the world, and all with the face of our Monarch on - soon to be Charles maybe. That was the man today, the man who received such contempt and lack of appreciation.

I was also confused by the turn out, well, the handful of Brits who bothered to turn out shall I say.

The irony of 1,300 EDL supporters gathered in Hanley 4 weeks previous, rioting about sovereignty and tradition was a lot to take in. 1,300 men chanting “God save the Queen” so passionately, I thought I was going to walk round the corner to Lizzy being hung, drawn and quartered with the EDL pleading helplessly. So why couldn’t Prince Charles bring the nationalistic EDL to the Civic Centre to patriotically greet the Royals? Or maybe the EDL were just bellowing Royal chants 4 weeks previous because it felt like the buzz of match day?

Maybe we’ve just lost touch with our Royal family. The Monarchs aren’t embraced with passion and spirit anymore. Britain has lost the love for tradition and pride. Having a Royal on the throne doesn’t excite anyone anymore. Our Royals might not have any legitimate or significant reason to exist in Britain in 2010 but why can’t we celebrate our heritage by showing respect to somebody who makes our country stand out from the rest. Maybe we’ve become too impartial? Surely elites can exist for cultural purposes only, rather than need an obvious reason for such status.

I’m proud we have a royal family, and I’m very pleased to have seen Prince Charles today with my own eyes, rather than him standing in front of me whilst I gaze at him through a viewfinder whilst thinking about rushing back home to get the photos onto Facebook. Or maybe that’s just the way we’re heading as a country.