Author: cherokoff

Well, it’s all over – although the Paralympics are yet to come – and as a kingdom, still united for now, we are full of praise for out team members, and their support structures, and, let’s be honest, ourselves a little bit, for an extremely successful games. Stepped up from 2012, 2nd in the medal table, praise all round.

And rightly so. The dedication involved is awe-inspiring, and it is always pleasing to see that rewarded on an international stage as iconic as the Olympic Games.

One day on, and the questions already start, and the gloss starts to disappear. I am not sure when success couldn’t just be enjoyed for its own sake, rather than a gauge for what was or what is still to come, but what should be a time for enjoying the glow of a magnificent achievement is now the starting gun for ‘What next?’ and ‘Why has success still been a failure?’

Firstly, ‘What next?’. The questions have already started about how we will improve our performances in Tokyo in 2020, and while I can understand that within the sports themselves, this has all been coming from the media and the Government. It does seem a shame that we cannot just enjoy the results for what they are a little while longer.

Instead, we have the pressure for the success or failure of the next Olympics placed on the shoulders of the sportsmen and sportswomen who have given their all. Whilst the input of large sums of money from the Lottery has meant that elite sports development has been taken to where it is now, it also holds the participants liable for how much funding will follow, and their success or failure over the past three weeks as the potential make or break for their sport, those up-and-coming in their sport, and the next Olympic success or failure.

Next, ‘Why has success still been a failure?’. After 2012, the legacy was all. Suddenly the entire youth of the UK was going to get up, out, and start sweating. Sports participation can be a definite positive socially, physically, even morally. But is the legacy the responsibility of those who already operate at the top of the sport? They have a particular ability in a particular arena, so why is that a guarantee that they can also be public advocates for their sport?

I think we are extremely lucky that there are as many elite sportspeople who can effectively advocate on behalf of their sport, and for good health and life styles in general, but does it have to be the expectation that follows an Olympic medal?  Unless there is a clause that goes with Lottery funding, then take the pressure off.

Their responsibility is to perform to the best of their ability. Certainly there should be an acknowledgement of the support from public funding, but to be held accountable for the success in four years time, or for the lack of success from four years ago, seems an unnecessary added burden.

And that doesn’t mean we blame government either. Whilst I am happy to lay all the woes of the world at the door of the Tories, as long as they fulfill their remit to support and advocate, then that will do fine. There are no guarantees in sport – except Usain Bolt – so let us not post-mortem the recent success to death.

Let us just enjoy the success, and for my part, be very grateful that other people are happy to strive to achieve and leave me in the armchair to watch.

Or perhaps, to be a bit more precise ten / twelve / sixteen / who knows – in just about every bit of unhealthy food pushed towards us these days. And more specifically towards the younger generations.

I suppose we should have expected significantly less than was promised, some ten years ago now, when David Cameron – whatever happened to him – said that it was time to change the way unhealthy foods are sold, and how much sugar is put in our foods.

Apart from taking an incredibly long time to do anything at all, the only fundamental change has been a sugar tax on drinks, announced in the Budget earlier this year.

Statements, intentions, discussions, determinations. We have had more than enough of those. And throughout the message from the non-food industry professionals and experts, such as those responsible for looking after our declining health standards and rising obesity, has been consistent. Reduce sugar content. Stop pushing unhealthy foods at children. Simple really.

Well yes, and no. Putting to one side the power and depth of the food industry lobby, there is the little matter of the government telling people what to do. The Tories, by nature, are non-regulatory. If you start stipulating sugar content and sales procedures, these require regulation. Unless you rely on voluntary cooperation, and see how well that has done so far.

Don’t forget, one of the ‘reasons’ we voted to leave the EU were the regulations – you know, the ones concerned with protecting our health and welfare – so let’s be realistic, there will be no more now.

If it was trade union operations the government would be, and have been, happy to regulate to the end of time. If it potentially puts a bit of stress on industry, commerce, business, then not a chance.

The joy of the free market is that, along with the goods bought and sold, the population also become commodities, and ones that can be ignored if enough noise is made about threats to the bottom line.

Shortsighted – certainly. Misguided – definitely. But hey, that’s business.

I am wondering exactly when it became required – even a political imperative – to wave a presumably over-sized penis dramatically, growl oaths of death and destruction to every question, and stare askance at anyone who equivocates at ‘shoot first, talk later’.

Even our new, female, Prime Minister, appears to need to wave presumably theoretical equipment in the breeze, assuring the world that she would be happy to pound away at the nuclear button.

Over many centuries man, bless him, has always been happy to attack an ‘enemy’ rather than attempt to negotiate a peace. Or at least in public.

Every politician, every leader knows that the only lasting solution is, at some stage, to sit down and talk. Through every conflict, over centuries, whilst we have thrown bodies and weapons at each other in ever more destructive ways, behind the scenes the discussions, negotiations, compromises carry on.

Unfortunately, because man is a deeply flawed and imperfect manager of peaceful co-existence, there will always be conflicts. However, why does this mean that proposing a peaceful resolution as the first option, rather than the last, is such a shocking and un-leadership position to take.

As the member of a group of people who have, over the centuries, had more than their fair share of despotism in a variety of forms, I know the cost of man’s ability to inflict destruction. But is that not a reason, more than anything else, to always look for the alternative solution.

And have we not learnt, not only from previous centuries, but from the progress of the current century, that international aggression has created nothing, has solved nothing, has only instigated chaos, catastrophe, ever increasing death tolls, and a more and more fractured world.

What is wrong with someone saying that their first response to conflict is to talk. Sounds like a rational and realistic alternative to far too many penises waving in the air.

As a Radio 4 addict, my mind, emotions, ire, empathy and ‘are you kidding me?’ meters are triggered on a regular basis, but not often by ‘Desert Island Discs’. However, the last one I heard got the brain moving, and the emotions too.

The guest was Nadiya Hussain, last year’s winner of The Great British Bake-Off. I am a fan of the programme anyway – and who wouldn’t be – but this one stirred me more than usual.

This wasn’t a high flyer in academia, business, the arts, politics. Here was an ordinary woman, a devoted wife and mother – bright, articulate, but an ordinary woman. She was pushed into the limelight by her husband spurring her application, and blossomed over the weeks to become a more publicly confident winner.

That, however, wasn’t the most interesting aspect. She has subsequently been praised as being one of most important positive forces in inter-racial and inter-religious relations in this country. By being herself, and a Muslim, and succeeding. She has received, as you would expect, some negative activity from the neanderthal end of the internet, but overall a huge positivity.

This reminded me of a story from a week or so ago of Irom Sharmila Chanu, an Indian woman who has been on hunger strike for 14 years. Her reason – the draconian laws put in place to deal with peaceful protest, and the killing of innocent people by government forces. She has since decided that, as there is widespread awareness of the situation throughout India, it is time for a more direct approach and is standing for election.

And that reminded me of a third, and possibly even more impressive ordinary person. Malala Yousafzai was a child when she was thrown onto the world stage for being shot for wanting to be educated. She is now known worldwide, working with the UN to extend her aspiration to every girl in the world as a right.

And having watched ‘Suffragette’ last night something else has just occurred to me, these are all women.

It is easy to sit back and shrug and accept the ‘I am no-one. What can I do?’ approach to all of life’s little – and not so little – areas of unfairness. And  then you look at these three, and thousands upon thousands of others, who have said no to the status quo.

Two from the ‘developing world’ – I hate that term, all three women, and yet real social and cultural revolutionaries.

And definitely anything but ordinary.

With the ongoing arguments about Brexit, the potential repercussions, the pros, the cons, the endless blame for the result of the referendum, the one common refrain is that it’s done – ‘Get Over It’.

And it raises the question of exactly what is the statute of limitations on recriminations for past activities, errors, less than total honest statements?

i suppose the obvious answer is ‘It All Depends’. Genocide has a fairly lengthy time limit, and rightly so – but more for the instigator and their acolytes than the nation that may have positively or passively allowed or supported the activities.

A criminal pays the cost with prison and then, hopefully moves forward, depending on the crime of course. Even the easiest definition of past misdemeanours has got endless subdivisions.

And when it comes to the ‘Celebrity’ circus of past errors of judgement, the time frame seems to relate more to the level of celebrity, the salaciousness of the slip, and the volume of other, juicier gossip.

At the moment, on either side of the Atlantic, we have two very interesting examples of the get over it statute of limitations.

In the US, we have the extremely unedifying vision of a bloated orange ego running riot with anything remotely related to the truth,  and pulling along behind him the disillusioned middle America, spectacularly failed by their natural party, the Republicans. We are yet to see whether the endless racist, misogynist and plain bullshit statements will ever catch him up.

meanwhile, in our dear islands, we have the three biggest bullshitters of the Brexit campaign now in charge of the negotiations for their intended outcome. and again, we have to wait and see what sort of mash-up they provide as their solution to our independence from Europe.

But what about the ‘Get Over It’? Simply, I am still more than angry about the lies, half-lies and blatant misdirection that was paraded by the Brexitiers as the truth, until it was denied within 24 hours of winning.

And I am still more than angry with those that voted to leave, because it would only have taken 5 minutes of querying the statements to see that it was all bullshit. But it was easier to blame the EU for the misfortunes of this blessed kingdom than to accept that electing the Tories, or not paying attention to what was really happening, was the reason for the problems that exist.

And it is always easier to accept a neatly packaged vision of our country’s ills than to see and accept what they actually are. Because that means we have to take responsibility for it ourselves.

Mañana is easy, shrugging shoulders is easy. But real citizenship isn’t. Because it brings involvement and responsibility, and culpability.

So no, I will not ‘Get Over It’. not for a long, long time.

An interesting dilemma will be arising in the next year or so, and it will be interesting to see if the consciences of the Leave voters will be pricked at all by what is bound to come.

Accepting that the EU is an over-bureaucratic behemoth, ripe for a bit of rational slimming and trimming, the one thing it did offer was a very hefty bargaining tool. As a trading force, both inwards and outwards, it has substantial leverage on those countries outside the EU that have less than gleaming Human Rights records.

Yes, there is Canada, wonderfully polite. The USA, proclaimer of democracy but with some very interesting addenda to their approach to equality – but hey, they speak English! Australia are more or less there, with a few historical wrinkles to iron out; New Zealand keep beating us at rugby, but O.K.

And then things start to get tricky. There is a huge variety of the degree to which Human Rights are honoured, ignored or determinedly destroyed amongst a wide swathe of the other countries of the world; those that the Brexitiers were so keen for us to have access to, to establish those trade relations that will see the UK sail off into a gleaming sunset of prosperity.

So, what do we do? Do we say “We will only trade with you if you improve your Human Rights record”? Do we demand that “Whilst we trade with you, we expect you to change your regime”? Or do we just take any arrangement on offer as long as there is money in it.

Let’s not forget that we have a slightly murky history of dealing with deeply dubious regimes – Iraq anyone? Pick a Middle East country anyone? Pick many an African country over the years anyone? How is Eastern Europe standing up anyone?

This is not intended to be a tirade of “We are perfect examples of humanity and righteousness and the rest of you are beneath contempt”. Because we are not, by a long way, and getting longer. But, where countries can be persuaded to change, develop, improve their Human Rights performance, then that is surely a good thing.

So, where exactly will be the leverage a year or so down the road? If we retain membership of the trading umbrella of the EU, then we will be ruled by all those regulations and laws our exit was supposed to free us from. If we do not, then we are no longer a useful route into the EU, and therefore the leverage is gone.

Just because we used to be a global empire power, we are no longer. And  the ex-colonies gratitude for our presence, and subsequent departure, and the wonderful legacy left behind, will count for nothing in that brave new world.

Without a conscience we may find enough trading partners to keep us going. With any sort of conscience we will be, as the Brexitiers said they wanted us to be, out on our own.

As a clear demonstration that the established base of the Parliamentary Labour Party are more interested in their ‘political’ careers, rather than either democracy, or the fundamental ethos of the Labour Party, they are missing a clear opportunity to score real and substantial hits on the Tories.

As the latest in a long line of indicators that the gap between what they promised and what has actually come to pass, Grantham & District Hospital may lose its A&E at weekends. Now, I am sure that central government will scuttle madly to find numerous targets to pass the buck to, but the bottom line is that the NHS, along everything else in the country, is not safe in their hands.

You can take your pick of the endless promises and targets given ans set over the last parliament and a half, and can count on the fingers of one foot those that have been met. Whether you agree with the targets have been met or not, that is not an indication of a successful government. And those that suffered before still suffer, and have been joined by ever more.

And what is the PLP doing? Going to court.

Just because Jeremy Corbyn isn’t the ‘standard’ party leader doesn’t mean he can’t lead the party, and the country. Just because he wont espouse the ‘tory-lite’ policies that a good number of you supported for years, doesn’t mean he isn’t representing the core principles and values of the Labour Party, because that is exactly what he is doing.

If you feel his public persona is not as charismatic as the previous Labour Party Prime Minister, is that such a bad thing? Look where that vain-glorious ego took us.

This is a different politician, and hopefully a different type of politics. Instead of behaving like Tories, stop the foot stamping and ‘I want my ball back’ antics, and work with the man who was elected with a huge mandate to lead a party whose membership is still growing – thanks to him.

And if a few ‘Trots’ sneak in, so what. If you want  a broad church, then have one, and stop moving the pews when it doesn’t suit your sensibilities. Let’s try to behave like mature, respectful and responsible people, represent the people in the UK that need your help, and stop providing smoke screens for the Tories to hide their failures behind.

 

Here we go again. Another example of how a good sound bite is more preferable to the truth in the devious depths of the Tory Party.

After the riots of 2011 a Troubled Families programme was established, spending £400m to turn around 120,000 troubled families.  Hooray. And after just short of 99% of those families ‘turned around’, another £900m was added to help a further 400,000 families. Hooray, Yippee.

Except, except, except. A report was produced last autumn stating that the positive results may have been a little over-emphasised. That is, there was no discernible change. Suprisingly, the report wasn’t published.

And it was a certain David Cameron who shouted loudest about the success. The same Cameron who so over-egged the fear campaign against Brexit that it became a comedy of horrors.

The same Cameron who won the last election on the lie that the Labour Party are fiscally irresponsible. Based on what? A budget deficit that had saved the UK economy in the face of a global financial crisis.

The outright lies and blatant distortions have ensured that the Tories retain power at the expense of the majority, as always.

What is more worrying, however, is the speed that these crimes disappear from the news landscape.

It was news yesterday, gone today. What ever happened to the inquiry into Tory election expenses? What about the resignation Honours List cronyism? Or the Chilcot Report?

I have been, am and always will be a staunch supporter of a publicly owned BBC. But publicly funded should mean publicly responsible. Which means holding power to account until the answers are forthcoming.

Which I suspect will not be safe to hold my breath for.

It appears that, as the ‘agreed’ list of Honours to be bestowed by the crown at the behest of David Cameron on his resignation is finalised, the right wing press has discovered some moral backbone in its condemnation.

The Honours system has had two distinct sides for many years now. On the one side- sunny, shiny, bright – acknowledgement and recognition of service to the community, to society, with an emphasis on more give than take. On the other side – murky, dank, reptilian – are the rewards for monies paid and favours done.

However, it would seem that Cameron has managed to tip the balance a little too far towards cronyism, even for his erstwhile supporters. And it does stink. And I don’t understand why there should be so much bellowing. What else did they expect.

Why should a man fed on the presumption of arrogant superiority show any humility at the end. The fact that he could establish a scenario that could cause huge potential damage, fail to achieve the result he expected, then scuttle off with hardly a backward glance, is a clear indication that he has no concept of the meaning of the word Honour.

The shame of the situation is that another peerage nomination, that of  Shami Chakrabarti, has been caught up in it all.

I will put aside for the moment my opinion on the validity or otherwise of the House of Lords, and simply consider the experience, expertise and divergent opinions that she could bring to it.

Here is a woman who has achieved an enormous amount in the national and international Human Rights, shining a light on those areas and demanding clarity and justice from those who would prefer uncomfortable truths remained in the shadows.

And it strikes me as beyond ridiculous for her to discard that for a peerage. That is an insult to both her on an individual basis, and to all that has been accomplished over the years.

The timing is unfortunate, coming as it does hot on the presentation of an investigation report into antisemitism in the Labour Party, which didn’t uncover the institutionalised nature of it that some had hoped to be uncovered. Just because the report didn’t provide the information that either the Chief Rabbi or the Board of Deputies of British Jews expected to be there, doesn’t mean that she behaved in any other way than honourably. That word again.

As I said, the timing is unfortunate, but dishonour for Cameron doesn’t mean that every other honour needs to be devalued. There is potential, now more than ever, for a new style – and new approach – to politics. Her career speaks for itself, and that should be enough.

With the opening ceremony due tomorrow – and much too late for old farts like me to watch live – the ugly side of international athletic competition is alive and well in South America.

When the world decided to resurrect the Olympic Games in 1894, it was, generally, with the best of intentions. Athletes, and sportsmen in general, were amateurs, and the spirit of competition was the main criteria.

Politics, power and racism aside, the founding principles remained for longer than perhaps could have been expected. But, humans being what they are, if its an ideal to strive for, why not screw it up.

And so the cheating, drug-taking, and a variety of other irritants began to emerge. But the worst of all was the competition that evolved between the countries putting on the games.

As soon as governments, and the forces behind governments, become involved in what should be a competition of athletic prowess, things are going to get screwed. Too much money, too much disruption, too many empty legacy promises.

So, here is a resolution, or maybe one and a half resolutions.

This is, fundamentally, a world-wide competition, and therefore it makes sense, and seems only fair, that the venue is in different parts of the world. However, as a world-wide competition, why shouldn’t the world pay for it. Why place a continuous series of countries into debt every four years, when all those who participate can contribute.

Different rates and levels of contribution would have to be negotiated – a nightmare in itself no doubt – but a rational means of maintaining a competition that, at its core, is based on fairness.

The other half resolution would either involve, financed on the same principle, permanent sites spread among the various continents/regions of the globe, which would detract a little from the ‘legacy’ advantages; or one permanent site. But would the world ever agree on that, or where it should be?

Just a thought.