ACTION IMAGES

By Cressida Smart

A recent tweet suggested that Joey Barton’s sending off provided the extra time that
allowed Manchester City to score two more goals and lift the title. Perhaps there is some
truth in it, but it really is water under the bridge now. Barton’s actions highlight the
wider issue regarding Premier League footballers’ reach and contribution to society.

For those who missed the action last Sunday, Joey Barton was shown a straight red
card for catching CarlosTevez with an elbow; he then struck Sergio Aguero, confronted
Vincent Kompany and had to be pulled away from Mario Balotelli after being restrained
by Micah Richards. The incidents involving Aguero and Kompany came after Barton
had been dismissed, meaning they fall outside the jurisdiction of the referee. He has
accepted one FA charge of violent conduct, but denied a second; he admits clashing with
Aguero after being sent off, but says he has no case to answer for his confrontation with
Kompany. In addition to a four-match ban for his second red of the season, each charge
could carry a three-match ban; the FA’s regulatory panel also has discretion to increase
his suspension.

Joey Barton isn’t the first to receive a red card and of course won’t be the last. What
strikes me as worrying is his post-match action. He was quick to jump on Twitter, “Still
not my proudest moment but who gives a f*ck, we are safe……….and that is all that
matters.” This is one of many abusive tweets that has sprung forth from his malicious
tongue or should I say keyboard, over the past week. As of today, Joey Barton has 1,543,
819 followers. Beyond that, it is hard to estimate how often his tweets are retweeted and
are read by those who revere and despise him. The message he sends out is that he can
physically assault on the pitch, verbally assault off the pitch and walk away with a slap
of the wrist in the form of a probable match ban and fine. This is all to the tune of his
£60,000+ weekly salary and an extraordinary lack of remorse for his actions.

From where I am standing, it seems like football players live by a different set of
laws and take little positive action with their fame and influence. However last week,
Jermaine Defoe, a striker for Tottenham Hotspur bucked my view and possibly the public
opinion of Premier League footballers as overpaid, irresponsible and spoilt. Defoe is
acting as a mentor in a project set up by the football club that’s entitled E18hteen. The
name refers to Defoe’s squad number but also to the age of many of the participants.
E18hteen aims to train and find employment for 160 young people who are, or have
recently been in care. The teenagers are drawn from four boroughs of London– Barnet,
Enfield, Haringey and Waltham Forest – close to Tottenham’s ground; Tottenham was
the centre of last summer’s riots and looting. While E18hteen doesn’t speculate about the
underlying causes of the disturbances, there is an understanding that the club needs to
reach out to some of the more deprived neighbourhoods that surround the stadium.

For Defoe, his ties with the violence and crime in the capital are personal. Three years
ago, his half-brother, Jade “Gavin” Defoe, was killed in a street fight. He says that he
had been growing increasingly concerned about the plight of young people in London,
but the death of his half-brother made him stop and ask what he could do. He also has a
cousin who was in care but is now in prison. Defoe approached the Tottenham Hotspur
Foundation, the club’s community charity, and said that he wanted to get involved in

helping young people in need. The result was E18hteen, which has now been operating
for seven months. The scheme focuses on teenagers in or from care because, statistically, they face the biggest challenges in society: 53% leave school without any qualifications;
29% are designated Neet – not in education, employment or training; 23% of the prison
population has been in care. In addition, 20% of women leaving care between the ages of
16 and 19 become mothers within 12 months.

The concept is E18hteen identifies individual talents and then seeks to realise their
potential. The scheme also tries to ensure that participants are armed with a qualification
in something like crowd stewarding that can deliver employment. Each member of the
scheme is allocated a personal mentor, who checks progress, maintains contact and is
there to help in moments of difficulty or crisis. Once a month a small group of them meet
up with Defoe. The footballer enjoys an easy rapport with the teenagers, sharing much
of the same slang and can speak about urban music with no little authority. However, the
point of connection that the project members emphasise is Defoe’s experience of loss.

The cynics amongst you will no doubt comment on the lavish lifestyle that Defoe leads.
Yes, he does earn an enormous salary and had been known to date models and reality
TV stars; why the latter should be a black mark against his name is a mystery to me,
surely he can date who he chooses. However, as Charlotte, one of the participants in the
programme has said, “…it’s not the lifestyle, it’s that he’s done what he wanted to do. You
could be the dustbin man if that’s your dream.” Defoe is using his celebrity status and
his ability to reach the youth of today to make a difference. If anyone can help struggling
teenagers who are lured by the appeal of gangs and criminal activity, it is those whom
they admire and to whom they may actually listen.

He is not the only player to use his fame in this way. Chelsea striker Didier Drogba set
up a foundation in his name in 2007 which aims to provide health and education support
in his native Ivory Coast and elsewhere in Africa. He has poured in plenty of his own
money. Craig Bellamy is one of the game’s most active charity campaigners. The 32-
year-old, currently with Liverpool, set up the Craig Bellamy Foundation in 2007, to run
Sierra Leone’s first (and currently only) football academy.

Joey Barton has an enormous following both on and offline. He exerts a negative
influence on youngsters; note I haven’t even listed his off pitch activities. I would
really like to see Barton use his money and recognition in a positive manner. However,
with his reputation in further tatters, his football career uncertain, would any charity or
philanthropic venture want to have any association with him? I sincerely doubt it.

c/o sagabaradon

It never quite went away, but the sobering debate of Greece’s exit from the Eurozone has hit markets hard. Since the entire Eurozone can be described as struggling, with the exception Germany, what is happening in Greece can be said to be economic failure.

Those marathon talks about a Eurozone fiscal compact last December failed to confound the pessimism of markets worried about holdings not just in Greek banks, but also in Spanish, Portuguese and Italian banks.

A messy election and no clear winner has left the Greek President, Karolos Papoulias, to appoint an interim government and arrange fresh elections for mid-June (which is also the date Greece is due to receive new bailout funds). Greece is now at an impasse; does it stay or does it go? Either route involves social, financial and political turmoil and further suffering for the Greeks.

Germany, the rest of the Eurozone and the markets would strongly favour Greece to stick with the Euro which sets the scene for a standoff between Merkel and the likely leader of the Left Coalition Greek coalition come June; Alexis Tsipras. This coalition has pledged to shake off the austerity measures required to gain new bailout funds. Merkel is unlikely to agree to any deviation of such measures at the risk of a backlash amongst German taxpayers heading to the polls next year.

So how does a member of the Eurozone exit? Can economies leave the Eurozone but stay within the EU, or do they need to reapply? What protocol or legislation exists for such a situation?

A poorly publicised paper in fact exists, which was released in October 2011, and within it, Eric Dor provides an insight into how events could transpire, should such an exit occur.

Adhering to current law, the only way Greece could exit the Euro and the EU as a whole would be to use Article 50 of European treaty regulations. It would then negotiate membership back into the EU. Or Article 50 could be amended to allow Greece to exit the Euro, but stay in EU. As with all things European, such an amendment would require ratification from every member state and would be far too slow a reaction.

Therefore, the most likely scenario to keep up with market reactions would be to gain agreement by the entire European Council, which could issue a new regulation allowing Greece to withdraw from the Euro quickly – the legal issues would be discussed and dealt with afterward.

A difficulty would be that Greece would leave the Euro alone, and so all current business contacts and inter-EU debts could not be immediately converted as no exchange rate exists. Add to that the expectation that a Greek Drachma could only depreciate against the Euro in the short and long term, which makes for sobering process.

Steps would therefore need to be taken in order to avoid panic which would very quickly spread through the rest of the Eurozone, and beyond. The managing director of the IMF, Christine Lagarde stated on 15 May 2012 that the Euro should be ‘‘technically prepared for anything”. ‘Technical preparation’ could be blocking saving accounts and even an illegal capital control within the wider EU to limit the circulation of capital within the European free market.

Legality

Some regulations may have to be ignored in order for the European Council to react quickly enough. Obviously, the UK benefits from EU membership without being a member of the Eurozone, but all countries now joining the EU must sign up to the Euro. Article 50 only allows for a full divorce from the EU, and not a selective one.

International Law is a useful here, as it would allow the Greeks to leave the Eurozone of their own accord (without EC involvement) but remain in the EU. Dor points out that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows any sovereign nation to suspend or withdraw from any international treaty of their choosing (even in the case of the Eurozone, which does not contain a ‘get-out’ clause).

The convention also stipulates that clauses within an international treaty can be withdrawn from whilst remaining within the treaty (the EU itself) overall – this appears to be the only legal way for Greece to withdraw from the Euro, but to remain within the European Union.

The fall-out of abandoning the Euro

When countries first joined the Euro, they did so together, from old established currencies into a shared currency which provided an easy and simple conversion of trade contracts, and inter-governmental debt. A sole nation leaving in a panic, from an established currency into a completely blind and new currency would allow no way to convert holdings, contracts or debt. There is simply no way to relatively convert from the Euro to a new Drachma.

Debt is main question here, Greece currently holds billions of the €644 billion Germany’s Central Bank has so far lent to struggling Eurozone nations and banks. As the receiver, would Germany want to receive their repayments in Euros or Drachmae?

The Greeks as borrowers would prefer to pay in Drachmae (which would be very weak against the Euro), and the Eurozone lenders would wish to be paid in Euros to get more back. According to the principle of lex monetae, as the lending state, Germany would have the final say on which currency would be used: more bad news for the Greeks.

Since the Greek national and domestic banks would have their holdings frozen and then converted to the severely depreciated and weak Drachma, they could quickly go bankrupt.

Again, with no real way to establish an exchange rate between the two currencies, panic would ensue and money would be quickly pulled out of banks in Greece, and the banks that lent to them – possibly causing another credit crunch. Was this why the IMF was fundraising recently?

Dor sets out the following step-by-step process to follow;

1. As the secessionist, Greece would need to freeze accounts of both domestic and national banks for all residents (foreign holdings would not need to be frozen).

2. The foreign holdings would instead be converted at a 1:1 ratio of Euro:Drachma and this also applies to all loans from the ECB and other national banks and organisations.

3. Trading would open on the foreign exchange market of the new currency, where the Drachma would quickly depreciate. But this depreciation could be measured, and used to provide an accurate conversion rate.

4. The frozen domestic accounts would be used to buy sovereign bonds in order to stop the new currency devaluing too much against other currencies. The free market and free exchange of capital within the EU could also be temporarily and illegally frozen.

5. On a more practical note, Euro notes would be stamped to state they were worth only what they could be converted into in Drachmae. Those who still keep their savings under their mattresses would have an amnesty period whereby they could go to currency shops and have their notes stamped for use as temporary legal tender.

6. The wait for new Drachma banknotes and coins would then begin.

Which ball in and in whose court?

It seems that whether Greece stays or goes, an uncertain and difficult future awaits Greece, the Eurozone and the EU. Difficult negotiations are ahead. The best outcome would be to keep Greece within the Euro currency, if only as a firewall to prevent markets turning their attention to the much larger and equally worrying economies of Spain, Italy and Portugal.

Concessions to austerity will need to be made in order to keep the next Greek government willing to adhere to the fiscal pact. On the other hand, the markets and rating agencies will circle like vultures at any deviation from this pact, which could hint at a possible Greek default. Not only this, but Merkel is aware of the upcoming election and angry German taxpayers. With recent gains for Socialists in Europe, Merkel will be incredibly wary of allowing the loss of hard-earned German tax money.

Francois Hollande and Merkel met on 15 May 2012 for their first euro talks in Berlin. Hollande suggested that ‘everything is on the table’ – including Eurobonds – that were originally rejected by Germany. Hollande stated, “I want to renegotiate what was accepted at a certain stage to give it the dimension of growth”.

A happy middle ground needs to be reached by Merkel and Hollande for the benefit of Greece, the rest of Europe, and the markets. Perhaps, it would be best to stick with the rigid budget guidelines agreed in March 2012 but also to free up funds to alleviate joblessness in Europe and the corrosion to living standards in Greece caused by this unflinching budgetary discipline.

© Canada.com

By Cressida Smart

It all comes down to the last day. After nine months, 37 rounds of Premier League
matches and 1,034 goals scored, the 2011-12 season will reach its crescendo on ‘Survival Sunday’. There could barely be more at stake. The results of the 10 games will determine who wins the title, who qualifies for Europe, caveats to follow, and who becomes the third and final team to be relegated. All 10 matches will kick off simultaneously at 3 p.m.

The notion that tomorrow is ‘Survival Sunday’ is misleading and only applies to one of
three things to be decided – the relegation battle. By far the biggest issue to be resolved
is who will be crowned Premier League champions. As it stands, Manchester City and
Manchester United are level on 86 points at the top. City, however, have a superior goal
difference (+63 compared to United’s +55), and thus are in pole position to win their first
championship since 1968.

If City beat QPR, the title is theirs, unless United go on a prolific scoring spree to even
up the goal difference, which in all honesty is not going to happen – this coming from an
optimistic United supporter. To entertain the thought though, we’d be talking about City
winning 1-0 and United winning 9-0; United would then trump City on goals scored this
season. If City draw against QPR, United would need to beat Sunderland to win a 20th
league title. If City lose to QPR, United would need only a draw against Sunderland.

Still fancy United’s chances? When you consider QPR have won just three times on the
road this season, while City are unbeaten at home – winning 17 and drawing one of their
18 games at the Etihad – it’s no surprise City are odds-on to complete the job.

Whatever happens though, City and United are guaranteed the top two spots in the
Premier League and qualification for the Champions League next season. Who joins
them in Europe’s premier competition will be decided not just by what happens on
Sunday, but also by how Chelsea fare in the Champions League final.

England will have four teams in the Champions League next season, so Arsenal would
in theory need only a draw at West Brom to finish third or fourth, and thus be sure, for
now, of qualification, such is their superior goal difference to Newcastle. They could also
afford to finish level on points and goal difference with Spurs, because the next decisive
factor is goals scored. Arsenal have scored more than Spurs this season.

To stand any chance of making the Champions League, Newcastle must beat Everton and hope other results go their way. If Spurs and Arsenal lose, Alan Pardew’s team jump up to third with a victory. If one of the London clubs lose, Newcastle would have to make
do with fourth. If Newcastle win, Spurs must do the same to hold onto fourth. Their only
hope of finishing third is a victory coupled with a loss for Arsenal.

In any normal season, finishing fourth would be good enough for a Champions League
spot. However, if Chelsea beat Bayern Munich in the Champions League final on May
19, they will automatically earn entry into the Champions League next season, despite
being out of the running for Champions League qualification via the Premier League.
Therefore, given that England is only allotted four teams in the competition, whichever
team finishes fourth in the Premier League, most likely Spurs or Newcastle, will have to
make do with the Europa League.

If Chelsea lose the Champions League final, they’ll at least be guaranteed a spot in
the Europa League as FA Cup winners; Liverpool will also be in the Europa League,
courtesy of their Carling Cup success. There is also a Europa League spot open to
the team that finishes fifth in the Premier League, which will go to one of Arsenal,
Tottenham and Newcastle. Should Chelsea win the Champions League, the team who
finishes fourth will go into the Europa League too.

Returning to the idea of survival is just what QPR and Bolton are desperate to achieve
this Sunday. Blackburn and Wolves are already relegated; there’s nothing either team can
do on Sunday, but accept their fate and watch their best players advertise their services to
teams more fortunate. Bolton must beat Stoke to have any chance of survival. Anything
less and they’ll be relegated to the Championship. QPR can afford to lose at Manchester
City if Bolton fail to get three points. If Bolton win, however, QPR would need a draw
or better against City to stay up. It’s QPR’s desperate need for a result that will keep
Manchester United fans believing something extraordinary could happen at the Etihad on
Sunday.

The final day of the Premier League will also confirm the prize money each of the 20
teams will receive based on their ultimate position in the table. Exact amounts are hard
to come by, but each place should be worth around £800,000 to the team concerned. For
example, Stoke could potentially pick up an extra £2.4 million if they win on Sunday,
should three points lift them from 11th to eighth in the table. Rumour has it that,
Manchester United picked up just over £15 million in ‘merit money’ for winning the title
last season.

There are more accolades to achieve though, notably the golden boot, given for most
goals scored by a player in the Premier League season. Arsenal’s Robin van Persie has
scored 30, four more than his closest rival, Wayne Rooney. It would take something
remarkable from Rooney to stop Van Persie finishing on top. In addition, Van Persie still
has a record to play for this Sunday. If he scores he’ll match the Premier League record of
31 goals in a 38-game season shared by Cristiano Ronaldo (2007-08) and Alan Shearer
(1994-95). If he scores twice or more, he’ll set his own.

Overall, the goals record for a Premier League season stands at last season’s total of
1,063. So far this season, 1,034 have been racked up, so a return of 30 or more across the 10 games on Sunday would see a new record set.

In terms of bragging rights, Liverpool will be desperate to avoid finishing below their
Merseyside neighbors Everton. Carling Cup win aside, it’s not been a great season for
Kenny Dalglish’s Liverpool and the Reds go into the last game of the season resigned to
mid-table mediocrity.

However, not everything will be decided on Sunday. Along with the fourth-placed team
having to wait on Chelsea’s fate in the Champions League, there’s also the matter of
who’ll be coming up to the Premier League next season. Reading and Southampton have
already been promoted from the Championship. The third spot will go to the winners of
next weekend’s playoff final, between West Ham and Blackpool.

Tomorrow, settle down with a tipple of your choice, mine is always a Jack on the rocks,
and prepare for 90 minutes of nail-biting and heart-stopping moments. Ever the optimist,
I will be hoping for a City draw and a United win.

c/o NevilleHobson

By Luke Prescott

The local elections in England, Scotland and Wales have seen huge gains for the Labour party. Indeed, if mirrored in a general election vote Labour would have a comfortable majority, with Labour taking 38%, the Tories on 31% and the Lib Dems 16%. Big gains across swing seats in the South and Midlands illustrate that Labour and Ed Miliband are making the required headway into the seats that decide elections; even in Cameron’s own backyard.

So, is Ed Miliband leading Labour back to power for 2015 with an effective opposition? Not exactly; the current government is an opposition in itself and does not require a formal opposition to sit in Parliament alongside it. Cameron and Clegg (along with their lieutenants) wage war with each other on a number of issues (like the AV referendum) and have been doing so for some time. The beleaguered and delayed reform of the House of Lords is likely to give way to more open disagreement between the PM and Deputy PM.

The infighting of the Coalition is not going away, for both parties’, it useful in distinguishing themselves as each Party proves toxic to their opposite party’s core voters. This provides breathing space for Labour, as the Coalition partners save the most visceral of attacks for one another. Such an atmosphere is new to the opposition, and Ed Miliband needs to seize the opportunity to run a clean campaign in the run up to the general election.

Whilst the Lib Dems bleed the Tories by seemingly tying them down to the centre ground, and the Lib Dems haemorrhage voters, Miliband can concentrate, not on attacks, but on saving the NHS and tangible plans to nurture the economy back to health. Tory MP Gary Streeter has suggested that the Conservative party faithful are ”gagging” for the government to veer right on domestic issues traditionally seen to be in the Tory backyard, such as law and order, and the police. These credentials have been damaged of late; the cuts to police forces are seemingly to blame for the riots spreading around London, and the rest of the country.

Not only domestic issues, but the rise of UKIP (securing around 13% of votes where it fielded candidates) is also an inevitable source of tension. UKIP have seized the EU vacuum. Pressure has mounted on Cameron from influential elements of the Tory party to renegotiate and repatriate powers from the EU before the next election.

The pressure to veer right on domestic issues, such as the upcoming Lords Reform and Tory backbenchers eager for a Euro-showdown, will lead to disarray in the Coalition in the lead up to 2015. Ed Miliband has two roles in opposition: to derail the current Government, and then to promote his own. With one of these responsibilities taken care of already, Labour can concentrate on portraying themselves as the natural successors of the beleaguered Coalition in 2015. A positively run campaign will distinguish Labour and Ed Miliband from the pack, as voters shun austerity and hardship for a more optimistic vision.

However, a pit fall may come in the danger of losing national focus. The major legislative debates over the coming years will lead to inter-coalition battles and the media will continue to feed into the idea of a strained marriage between two coalition partners, seemingly putting on a brave face for the kids. Ed Miliband and Labour will struggle to be heard at times, and a danger is that at the next election they may look like the kid at a wedding, struggling to find a seat at the grown up’s table.

© Quick fix sports

This Sunday, Manchester City visit Newcastle United and then host QPR, and if they can win both of those matches they will win the Barclays Premier League and become the champions of England for the first time since 1968. Manchester United, meanwhile, host Swansea City and then travel to Sunderland on the last day of the season. They can repeat as champions if they win out their games and if City drops points.

Monday night was a disaster for Sir Alex Ferguson’s men. City now sit in first place ahead of United with two games left in the campaign, thanks to their 1-0 win on Monday. With the
victory, City pulled level on 83 points (they have identical 26-5-5 records) with United at the
top of the table. However, with City’s vastly superior goal difference over the red half of
Manchester, it means that in order for United to win the League this year, they will almost
certainly have to do it by finishing with more points than their bitter rival.

After leading the table for much of the season, it started to look like Manchester City would fade away. Their form towards the end of the season was not helped by the antics of wayward Mario Balotelli, but fortunately, they were able to bring Carlos Tevez in from the cold who duly obliged with a number of goals. The title may have been secured by this stage had Tevez not refused to warm up earlier in the season. After spending millions on numerous players, Roberto Mancini,

City’s manager, may not get another chance if they do not win the title this season.

In contrast, 2012 has been a season of transition for The Red Devils. Sir Alex Ferguson has placed his trust in several young players and at times they have fallen short. This was highlighted by the early exit from European competition. Many pundits thought bringing Paul Scholes back was a mistake but he has provided much needed experience and flair.

So what are United’s last two fixtures? The next clash they face is at Old Trafford against high-flying Swansea. When the fixtures list came out, many may have thought that this could be a title-deciding period, and expected that United beating Swansea would lead towards their relegation. However, the Swans have proven their worth in the League, though, and as such this match now has more of a tricky mid-table side feeling about it rather than a relegation decider.

Still, even given current form you would expect that United should take all three points in this game, albeit narrowly.

On the last day of the regular season The Red Devils travel to the Stadium of Light to face
Sunderland which is going to be a very difficult game. Sunderland have little for which to play – already doomed to mid-table mediocrity – but that won’t stop them trying to put one over on United. With the way things have gone over the past few weeks, you would probably expect a draw to be the most likely result for this fixture – an outcome that wouldn’t help United in the slightest. However, there is always hope, and assuming United do manage to battle it out for the win, that would mean City need victories in both of their last matches to secure the title.

Manchester City’s first match comes on the same day as the clash with Swansea, when they have to travel to Newcastle. If this match had come before last weekend, one may have genuinely believed Newcastle could pull off an upset – perhaps even win the match. However, after somehow losing 4-0 to Wigan, a result that ended a six-match winning streak, there will be a different mentality about the Newcastle players coming into the match. Remember, of course, that the Magpies could still very realistically qualify for the Champions League this season, so this game is probably the most important of their season so far. Can United Win The League?

• Yes

72.2%

• No

27.8%

Total votes: 370

It is very feasible that City could drop points in this game.

City’s last fixture is at home to QPR who are in the battle at the bottom of the table. Even with the magic of football and the unpredictable nature of the Barclays Premier League, you would almost bet your house on City picking up all three points in this one. The thought of the side that has ripped apart defences all season losing (at home) to a team that has been sloppy at the best of times defensively doesn’t seem very plausible.

So with all that in mind, can United win back-to-back league titles? Unlikely, but possible. They will have to give it their all to bring home the six points that are left on offer, whilst also relying on Newcastle (or less likely QPR) to do them a massive favour. It certainly can be done, but the worst thing about it is the fact that everything is out of United’s hands now.

One thing is for sure, it is City’s to lose more so than it is United’s to win.

© Marvel

Joss Whedon’s labour of love matches the hype

by John Spence

When pondering what other event has generated so much hype and expectation amongst its core fanbase as Marvel’s Avengers Assemble (hereafter known as The Avengers as it should have bloody been known in the first place) has for the comic book crowd, the only thing one could come up with was Armageddon for eschatologists and the ‘rapture-ready’ religious right. That’s the biblical Armageddon of course; not the Bruce Willis v giant meteor movie, obvs.

And, like Armageddon, The Avengers has had several portents. The six films (five, if you discount Ang Lee’s Hulk, which would be reasonable) that have fed us a drip drip drip of Avengers-based teasery have been of mixed quality, but common to all has been the limitation that, as they’ve all been produced as fore-runners to this film, they have always felt somewhat incomplete.

This has meant that some of the introductory films (and I’m looking at you Captain America: The First Avenger and The Incredible Hulk) have seemed like rather functional and drab place-holders rather than successful stand-alone films and, adding the very average Iron Man 2 to the mix, it would have been legitimate to be concerned as to whether The Avengers, like Armageddon, would end rather badly for everyone.

The good news from the outset was the appointment of Joss Whedon to both helm and script the film. While his recent TV record (Dollhouse) has been patchy, the goodwill that obviously still exists towards Buffy, Angel and Firefly, as well as the critical (if not commercial) success of the latter’s big-screen spin off Serenity ensured that this was the right guy to give both the right words and the right screen time to an ensemble cast and who can do both action and humour.

But did it work?

The answer is a resounding YES! The Avengers is everything that a) the comic book geeks and b) general cinema-goers (I‘m in the latter group) could want. Thrilling action, strong plot development and some excellent humour (everything from a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it sight gag on the Helicarrier to a Loki/Hulk interface produced huge chunks of chortle) meant that, in the screening I went to at least, the audience were swept along and responded positively to all the elements mentioned.

Of course Whedon’s direction and script can only work if the cast play ball and in this sense Chris Evans deserves an honourable mention. With Robert Downey Jr’s Tony Stark getting the zingers, Mark Ruffalo’s Bruce Banner getting a good line in dry humour and Chris Hemsworth staying the right side of overblown as Thor, Evans’ Captain America does appear a little bland by comparison, if only because that character is, emotionally speaking, far more balanced.

Other actors, or their agents, may have pushed for more ‘gag time’, but it is to Evans’ credit that he stayed true to his character’s disposition and provided the ‘straight guy’ to the others’ humour.

Samuel L. Jackson, given more screen time as SHIELD grand fromage Nick Fury, relishes the extra responsibility and portrays the various shades of grey within SHIELD well. Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner, as Natalia ‘Black Widow’ Romanoff and Clint ‘Hawkeye’ Barton respectively, bring a sense of fragility to their characters as the only ‘fully human’ members of Earth’s mightiest heroes but Hawkeye, of all the Avengers, seemed the most undercooked character.

The stand-out performance, however, is Tom Hiddleston as enemy-in-chief Loki. Following his disappearance at the end of Thor, Loki oozes menace and malevolence and Hiddleston’s portrayal is electrifying, moving between supreme confidence, outright viciousness and also a sense of a gambler’s fear; that somewhere inside he feels, he knows, that he has bitten off more than he can chew.

If there is a criticism that can be levelled at The Avengers it is that the enemy army, the Chitauri, feel entirely disposable and non-descript from the various other forms of cannon-fodder that are portrayed in other ‘beasties from beyond the stars’ films, while the denouement which on the whole is as well balanced and spectacular as the rest of the film, falls into the common trap of sometimes feeling like levels of a video game.

But these faults, such as they are, are entirely obscured by the comic book literacy and movie-making brilliance of all concerned. There is simply a sense of joy in this film that stands it above and apart from the rather gloomy superhero films that have been produced of late, and the writers have been canny enough to leave enough open plot strands to inform future films but, crucially, not in a way that leaves this film feeling incomplete. For that The Avengers deserves credit and the box-office so that Marvel will make more of them.

Oh, and as ever, don’t leave your seats during the credits!

**** ½ stars

On the Andrew Marr show (15/4) , Ed Miliband proposed that party funding should be limited, not to the £50,000 that David Cameron was suggesting but to 10% of that, a seemingly low £5,000. This is a radical change from the current unrestricted donations allowed (full details of current regulations can be found here) but is it for fiscal fairness, or comparative advantage?

With stories circulating in recent months about how a donation of £250,000 to the Conservatives puts you in the “Premier League”, where “if you’re unhappy about something, we will listen to you and put it into the policy committee at Number 10 – we feed all feedback to the policy committee”, a drop to even £50,000 let alone £5,000 seems odd but when taken in context is perhaps sensible. Those claims by former Conservative Party Co-Treasurer Peter Cruddas have been vehemently denied by David Cameron and it is likely that Mr Cruddas was exaggerating the power of money to gain donations but the basic point still stands; money talks and not everyone has that kind of money.

The average wage in the UK is around £26,000 a year, and even within that there is huge disparity with the average being £17,500 in Wales and £27,000 in London. The proposed Conservative cap is therefore around double the average earnings of a UK resident. The donations by the less well-off therefore won’t be that much more significant because they are still being hugely out spent by richer people. It would appear then that lowering the maximum to £5,000 is a step in the right direction to make ordinary people as important as the richest when donating. A cap of £50,000 would not stop the wealthiest influencing policies although the idea of donating £5,000 to a political party to the vast majority of people is still absurd.  In relative terms, there is only one winner but it would not solve the problem by any means.

However this isn’t simply Ed trying to make money fairer in politics. All the main parties receive donations above £100,000 so you would be forgiven for thinking that Labour, the Lib Dems and Conservatives would be hit relatively equally. This would certainly not be the case if Ed’s plans went through.  Every year through membership ties, the unions donate £7.5m to the Labour Party. This would be technically allowed under the £5,000 limit because no more than £3 per person is being donated. The scheme is opt-out for union members but there is fairly compelling evidence that most people who don’t want their money given away will not find the time to opt-out in a system like that. The Conservatives receive the majority of their donations from large private donors who would now be excluded, but the largest private donor of the Labour Party – the unions – would not.

I believe that there does need to be some regulation of how political parties get their money and a cap may be a way to do this, but the far more pressing issue should be that money buying influence (as it has been claimed to do) should be eradicated. It has no place in our liberal democracy. A cap will help this but it is the internal working of parties that is the main threat.

Depending on whether you read the Telegraph or the Guardian, you’ll see this move as a “wheeze” by a scheming Miliband or a “Tory snub” on a defiant Labour proposal. Either way, a complete rejection by Cameron could send out the message that the rich can buy influence in politics and acceptance would bring Miliband under fire for manipulating legislation for his benefit.

]]> http://the-vibe.co.uk/2012/04/17/party-caps-and-money-fairness/feed/ 0 thevibeeditor Money_closeup http://the-vibe.co.uk/2012/04/06/strikes-they-are-not-always-the-solution/ http://the-vibe.co.uk/2012/04/06/strikes-they-are-not-always-the-solution/#comments Fri, 06 Apr 2012 10:09:19 +0000 emma.brooks http://the-vibe.co.uk/?p=732 Continue reading →]]>

© My Hourglass

Lately there have been a lot of strikes going on around Europe, mostly related to the austerity measures that are being implemented to help pull us out of the recession. They have been given a lot of coverage by media, and of course we cannot help but feel sorry for our Greek neighbours. However, whether strikes are good for society or not remains to be seen. 

Having grown up in France, I have quite a particular relationship with strikes. Throughout most of school, teachers would regularly go on strike. We enjoyed it quite a bit, as it meant we had more free periods to hang out, but as exams started approaching we would resent the fact that we were falling behind in our program.

Sometimes, we would organise our own strikes. To be honest, I have no idea what they were about and I doubt we did then either. At age 15 or so, how can you take part in a strike and know what it means? Clearly strikes are so embedded in French culture, starting at a very young age to make sure that, as life goes on, you will be a cooperative worker always prepared to hop on the bandwagon and go on strike.

With hindsight, and having lived in the UK whilst one of France’s biggest protests went down (against the Contrat Premier Embauche CPE), I feel that this propensity to go on strike is a little ridiculous, and defeats its own purpose. Not only that, but it disrupts the lives of so many people, who would really rather just be left alone.

Just the other day, a friend of mine was trying to make her way to Bordeaux for the annual En Primeur week, and spent close to 5 hours delayed at the airport due to a French air traffic controllers strike, wondering if she would ever make it. This is a precise example of how strikes can ruin people’s lives, and create more damage than necessary to get a message across. Surely the air traffic controllers want to send their message to their employers or the government, and the passengers travelling have nothing to do with the fact that jobs will be cut in the near future?

In France, the scenario is often the same: at any time of year when there is a big holiday in perspective, people live in fear and anticipation of a strike. Christmas, Easter, Summer holidays, conversations are all the same “oh yes I heard the was a strike, I hope my trip won’t be affected” “imagine if our train/flight was cancelled, it would be such a nightmare” “oh the metro isn’t working so I’ll have to find another way to get from one station to another”. I won’t go on as I am sure you can imagine, and have probably been a victim of this yourself.

I understand why people want to strike, and to some extent I think it can be worth doing. Going on strike puts across a powerful message: we will not be putting up with this! It forces the people concerned to notice you, be it employers or the government, and realise that you are particularly unhappy with the changes they are suggesting. It shows that the people have the power, and sometimes it works. Employers and governments back down and give in to the demands of the strikers.

However I believe that in order to be truly efficient, the strikes should be few and far between. Let’s go back to the example of France: the French are on strike so often that it has become a joke. For a start, no one can keep up with what the strikes are about as it changes so often. Second, attention has started to wane and the strikes are less effective in getting employers or the government to back down.

It’s a bit like the boy who cried wolf: if you strike too often, soon people will stop noticing you and taking your requests seriously. Of course, some strikes in France are effective, as the aforementioned CPE protests. But mostly, the french are just annoying everyone else at home and abroad, whose lives are regularly disrupted.

One has to ask these people: do they really know why they are striking? Do they really believe in what they are striking for, or are they just joining in with the crowds? It sometimes seem to me as if the people who go on strike, are a bit like spoiled children who refuse to be occasionally told off. Sometimes, measures brought in by governments are truly the best solution at the time. Of course, it’s like swallowing cod liver oil: it’s nasty, but it’s necessary.

Take the austerity measures currently being implemented in Greece and other neighbouring countries. Yes the cuts are very severe, and these will be tough times ahead. On the other hand, the cuts are necessary if the country wants any chance to survive and not go bankrupt. Similarly, the CPE contract was a necessary evil.

People have been too used to taking matters into their own hands by striking, and getting what they want in return. This means that at times they have stopped governments from doing their work properly. They have stopped reforms coming in that were necessary and might have provided positive outcomes in the long run. Essentially, they are destroying their own future without even realising it, because they are too caught up in the moment.

I believe in freedom of expression and think that it is an important right we have acquired. Similarly, I believe in the right to strike for a worthy cause. However these two powers must not be abused, until we reach a point where they no longer have any meaning, and peoples’ lives are made miserable because of it.

© Archived Department of Energy and Climate Change

In many ways it was inevitable; in a week of an unpopular budget and a party funding scandal, it is hardly surprising that the new polling figures put Labour up to 10 points ahead of the Conservatives. There is a temptation to put this entirely down to the events of the past week, but there are some long-term points which can be drawn for these figures.The issue still dominating the headlines is the cash-for-access scandal which the Sunday Times exposed last week. This in itself need not have been a catastrophe for the Conservatives; it could have been put down to the personal impropriety of Peter Cruddas and quickly dealt with. However, the party made mistakes at every turn, by showing reluctance to release information, by not sending David Cameron to Parliament to answer questions of the matter and by using a strategy of attacking previous Labour governments rather than showing humility.

This strategy was exemplified by Francis Maude’s appearance (in place of the Prime Minister) at the House of Commons to be questioned. It was a performance of sheer arrogance and partisanship, and did little to dispel the notion that the Conservative Party was not taking this issue seriously. As memories of the ‘sleaze’ of previous Conservative governments were invoked, many commentators have begun to talk of how Cameron’s de-toxification of the Tory brand lies in ruins.

It seems indubitable that the Conservative Party are regaining their ‘nasty party’ reputation after recent policy debacles and scandals. It seems equally clear that they have probably been expecting this to happen ever since the election – it has been a minor miracle that the Government has stayed so popular whilst implementing such deep public spending cuts. The NHS bill, the Budget and the funding scandal combine to create a taste which is unpalatable to the majority of the public, and it is the combination of all three at once which makes it damaging.

Beyond those who already dislike the Conservative Party (whose opposition will simply increase in magnitude), this simply may not matter. Talk of the de-toxification of the Tory brand as if it were either successful or relevant is misguided. It was never the case that the party was given a make-over; it is simply the presence of David Cameron as leader which helped to inspire and maintain this notion of a slightly more cuddly Conservative Party. It wasn’t his trip to see husky dogs and talk about the environment that made him seem friendly, it was his ideological ambivalence and ‘Shire Tory’ roots.

It is equally misguided to talk of the re-emergence of this reputation as an electoral issue for the Conservatives. Firstly, had the de-toxification been entirely successful, they would have gained more than 36% of the votes in the last election. Secondly, unless the economy improves dramatically in the next 3 years, the 2015 general election will be fought on the one measure which still favours the Conservatives by a large margin; economic competency.

Ed Miliband and Ed Balls still have a long way to go to catch up on – there is a 20 point margin between them and the Government on who the public would support with the economy.  Slowly, Miliband is beginning to show signs of leadership. His response to the budget was excellent; Blairite George Foulkes called it ‘the best budget response [...] from opposition leaders in 33 years’.

It was a powerful riposte, exposing the most unfair aspects of the Chancellor’s plan, delivered with confidence and force, and replete with rhetorical flourish – most notably when he quizzed the front bench on whether they would be affected by the abolition of the 50 pence tax rate.

It could be said that the Government should not be disillusioned with these figures at all, for the one which matters most is not only in their favour, but is intensely difficult for the opposition to reverse.

A YouGov poll shows that the public overwhelmingly value ‘economic strength’ over ‘making Britain fairer’. As long as the Conservatives maintain this reputation, they should not be at all concerned by low polling figures, for whilst it may be the case that people do not approve of policies, come election day, the public will stick with them.

Copyright Mark Turner

In an attempt to rid the UK of its binge drinking culture, the government has proposed a minimum price of 40p per unit of alcohol for England and Wales, it was revealed today.  It is believed by the government that this proposal would not only save the lives of many but also mean that less money will be spent on policing and hospitals which are used to dealing with public drunkenness.

This might come as good news for many as a recent study carried out by the National End of Life Care Intelligence Network showed that in Britain, there has been a 25% in liver disease with alcohol being the main factor in number of cases.  This study also demonstrated that 60% of those affected are men while death rates were highest in the north west of the country with 24 out of 10,000 people affected.

A separate YouGov survey has shown that 55% of women in the UK aged 16 -24 like getting drunk perhaps indicating that the government are right to hold their fears about young people and binge drinking. In addition, the 2010 General Lifestyle Survey showed that women who are aged 65 or over in Britain and 12 times more likely to drink on near – daily basis than those who are 16 – 24.

Whilst all these statistics are useful in monitoring whether Britain’s binge drinking culture has got progressively worse, especially for women, the bigger question is whether this increase in cost is likely to solve the problems with drinking in the UK. Of course, the effect of the problem is larger than one can contemplate and requires more than simply increasing the cost of alcohol.

A 2012 study published in the Paediatrics magazine which followed 16,000 students from state schools, between the ages of 10 – 19 from the Netherlands, Iceland, Italy, Poland, Germany and Scotland discovered certain factors which affected binge drinking. These were peer drinking, rebelliousness, school performance, sibling drinking and age. It also found that 35% of young people had had their first binge drinking session by the age of 13.

Although this study was not carried out in England and Wales, the government should take lessons from this. There should be measures to deal with peer pressure, bullying, school performance as well as rebelliousness, all of which are significant problems with affect young people today. Drinking – related measures could then be linked in these other problems that affect the economy as a whole.

Even more, in another YouGov survey, it was said that nearly half of British workers are more stressed now than twelve months ago with 27% saying that drinking is a way to cope. And has there been any measure to help working adults cope with this? Not one that I have noticed. When people finish work, they do usually go for a drink and this can become a regular occurrence. It is a way of escaping the hectic day that you have just had and getting rid of your worries about work. But drinking should never be about escapism.

The drinking culture in most of these countries including the UK needs to be changed and individuals within the UK need to realise that it is not just teenagers or young people who have the problem of binge drinking.

This brings me to my next point which was made by Julia Manning who runs the think tank, 2020.org in a recent news article. Alcohol misuse in the UK is a problem for all and not just for the youth who experiment with alcohol. This drink culture begins at home with parents who are drinking daily at home and do not realise that their drinking habits will result in problems such as cancer, stroke or liver disease in later life. Subsequently, we see worrying statistics of 4% of 12 – 13 year olds who have drunk around 28 units of alcohol in a week, possibly after having witnessed the behaviour of their parents.

Some of the suggestions that Manning recommends to solve this problem of widespread alcohol misuse in the UK include GP’s offering an advice session to those who are drinking in excess, compulsory unit labelling on alcohol, a public health campaign as well as a review of advertising on alcohol. While I definitely agree that a review of advertising of alcohol needs to be done, especially since companies associate drinking alcohol with popularity, I do scarcely remember that there have been public health campaigns on TV as well as radio.

However, they quickly disappear before I have had the time to take the message in and then the next important issue takes over. What the government needs to do is to ensure that these campaigns have a better longevity so that the drinking culture can be allowed to change progressively rather than immediately.

While this increase in alcohol price is a good start in curbing the drinking culture in the UK, it should not be the only one. Many people in Britain do not even know that they do have a problem. It reminds me of a time when I lived in Belgium. You could always separate the tourists from the locals from how much they drank. And you could always separate the Belgians from the British. Most of them looked like they did not realise that it is a problem that they need to drink so much in order to have a great time. And they were not bingeing. They just did not realise their limit. And alas, the government has a bigger problem on their hands that goes further than just targeting those who binge drink.