World Cup Preview

brazil world cup header

And just like that, the World Cup is upon us.

The few days before the tournament gets underway always brings mixed emotions. It makes you ponder the conceptual accuracy of time, as the last World Cup in South Africa doesn’t seem like four years ago. Then when the tournament arrives, it seems to progress a frenetic pace. In a flash, before you know it, it’ll be over again.

The sad thing is that as it only happens every four years the hype during the build-up tends to transcend the likely reality of these tournaments, most games are cagey and cynical, and as the years pass the annoying revisionism of how good they were sets in. Even I’ve done this. Italy ’90 was the first World Cup I remember, and it’s my favourite, but its totality pales in comparison to its flashpoints. Usually memories of that time, which have nothing to do with football, become attached to those tournament flashpoints, a trigger of sorts for nostalgia. In my own case it was collecting the Italia 90 Panini sticker album and finishing it during the tournament. It was my first and as such it’s my beloved. And why not? It had the team names in many languages I’d yet to properly encounter. The shorts in the team photos were dangerously short and the player headshots had more dodgy perms, creepy stashes, the cheesy smiles than an early 80’s porno filmset. Terrific stuff. I look at it at least three times a year.

Anyway, fuck it, that’s enough of the contemplation about what the tournament might come to mean. There’s gonna be football, loads of football. So then, are you ready for three games a day for the next two weeks, and then the tension of the knock-out phase after that? Are you ready for the insufferable hysteria surrounding team England and the equally insufferable self loathing after their inevitable failure?

No? Thought not. How about a few thoughts on the tournament? Go on, read on as I’ll be making a few comments and a few predictions, the kind of territory where I make a complete arse of myself. I won’t be deleting or editing this post either. When you make a pick, or series of predictions, you stick by them, no matter what. Anyway, here we go:

Belgium won’t be as good as many are predicting                 

Fellaini belgium underachieve

They’re the trendy sexy (or is it sexy trendy?) selection as ‘Dark Horses’. What does ‘Dark Horses’ mean in this context? Winning the thing? Please, let’s be real here.

Let’s start with the obvious problem – too many of their players are overrated, and some seriously.

The same thing happened with Portugal’s so called golden generation of the late 1990’s to mid 2000’s. Everyone focused on the better individuals, and that Portugal side had Rui Costa, Luis Figo and a young Cristiano Ronaldo towards the end. Belgium has nobody as remotely good as those three. For example this Belgium team will prominently feature the mutant toilet brush that is Marouane Fellaini, destroyer of David Moyes and Manchester United.

Harsh I know, and yes, Eden Hazard is a top player, and he’d start for most of the sides in this competition. Kompany’s a fine centre back, and Courtois is a really good keeper, but after that things are less certain.

What will they get from Romelu Lukaku? At times he reminds you of Didier Drogba, others Emile Heskey, who was often as useful as trying to polish a marble surface with a piece of coal. They’ll be using centre backs at the full back positions, this usually doesn’t work. Dembele and Mertens aren’t automatic starters for their clubs but will probably start in Brazil. Witsel is another one who’s received a disproportionate amount of hype relative to his performances. He’s never impressed me.

In their favour is a trend of so called smaller nations doing well in recent World Cups; Sweden, Croatia, Bulgaria, South Korea and Turkey have made the semi-finals over the last twenty years. I don’t think Belgium will join them, and you have better choices for surprise packages. Belgium will qualify from their group, but won’t go much further.

If you’re looking for a dark horse, go with France

france world cup squad

Again, I’m interpreting ‘Dark Horse’ as a euphemism for making the semi-final/finishing third. Do I believe they’ll win the tournament? Not really, but they have some very good young players; Paul Pogba, Antoine Griezmann (I before E, remember) and Raphael Varane, to name three. Euro 2016, held in France no less, might be their time.

The Surprise package will be…Chile         

chile fans world cup

You should root for them, as they’ll attack, often recklessly, they’ll be robust, and they have enough quality to make things interesting against anyone. I would’ve gone with Colombia here had Falcao been fit. Another alternative is Ivory Coast; they have Yaya Toure, and some interesting younger players, but Didier Drogba’s 36 now. Croatia has the talent in midfield with Rakitic, Modric and Kovacic, but not enough of it elsewhere. Uruguay has a front three of Suarez, Cavani and Diego Forlan, but again, they’re, in some cases, severely lacking elsewhere.

One of them will make the last eight and it’ll be Chile, unless it’s not. How is that for arse covering?

England will fail to get past the group stage

Hogdson stare

Hardly an earth shattering prediction as Roy Hodgson (just look at the picture above – FUCKING. HELL.) and an unfit and disinterested Wayne Rooney are involved. Even worse they seem to be conjoined at the hip. Wherever Hodgson is so is Rooney, and because Hodgson’s the manager and managers are omnipresent, Rooney will play.

There’s also the small matter of a shaky defence. Glen Johnson has looked subpar (and that’s being kind) for club and country for months, Jagileka is average. Only Gary Cahill looks up to scratch. The options on the bench don’t inspire confidence; Jones, Flanagan, Stones and Shaw are unproven, and Smalling’s feet are too slow, even for England.

If England had a more adventurous coach this wouldn’t be such a big issue – play to your strengths etc, etc. But Hodgson is who he is, a voraciously arrogant, self pitying mediocre with a persecution complex, so he’ll revert to his bunker football type at the first sign of the opposition’s superiority, which will arrive in game one against Italy. Remember how England played against Italy at the last European Championships?

Still, Rooney looms over everything like a bad stench emanating from the kitchen of your local Chinese takeway. The implausibly odd English obsession with the saviour complex applies here. They are suckers for periodically anointing one player and hyping him up, possibly in the subconscious belief that he will have transformative powers to make the hype become a premonition. Too many people, including sponsors and the FA, have invested the stock of their intellectual and vocational reputations on not only England succeeding, but being lead there by Rooney. It’s coming back to haunt them now as there are better options up front (Sturridge), out wide (Sterling, Lallana, Chamberlain), and in the number ten role (Barkley, Sterling and Lallana), yet Rooney must play because he’s Rooney. It means either someone else has to play out of position, or not at all to accommodate him. Hodgson is further compounding this problem due to his strange infatuation with Danny Welbeck as a wide player. Theo Walcott’s injury hurts double here, as, while it wouldn’t solve the Rooney issue, it would’ve prevented Hodgson from making this gaffe.

If things start badly, will Hodgson be brave enough to drop Rooney and Welbeck and revert to England’s two best young talents, Raheem Sterling and Ross Barkley, before it’s too late?

Maybe it’ll snow in Brazil?

Marco Reus will be one of stars of the World Cup…until he buggered his ankle in a warm up game against Armenia, and is now out of the tournament

Marco reus injury

This is a wider lament on those players who’ll miss the tournament. It’s doubly frustrating as the World Cup only happens every four years. A footballer’s peak is usually short, and when it coincides with a World Cup you want them to be fit for it. Missing one World Cup isn’t similar to missing one domestic club season, where they can be fit for next year’s edition of the Champions League. Reus isn’t the only one missing, Radamel Falcao (Colombia) is out through injury, and Franck Ribery (France) is struggling to make it, and unlike Reus they’re highly unlikely to get another crack at it in their primes. Zlatan Ibrahimovic (Sweden), Gareth Bale (Wales) and Robert Lewandowski (Poland) won’t be there because their teams didn’t qualify. But Reus is the biggest loss. He’s an elegant player who makes the game look effortless, whether it’s his balance, passing, scoring, dribbling or creating. He glides, almost as if he’s weightless. While Germany is fortunate to have an abundance of attacking midfield talent, none of them are as good or productive as Reus is and he’s right at his peak. Without him, Germany’s chances of winning the tournament have taken a serious blow.

All eyes are on Luis Suarez

Suarez uruguay

Look, I’ll freely admit I’m biased about this as he plays for Liverpool, my team. I love the guy, and deep down, isn’t everyone fascinated to see the truly ugly, xenophobic nature of many little Englanders, incited by an equally hateful tabloid press, unrepentantly seep out after Suarez, already a hate figure, sends their pathetic insipid national team home?

I think he’s already there, but this stage gives him the opportunity to show that he deserves to be considered an equal of Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo. You could argue that he’s not the best player of the three, but as his craziness and his genius are intertwined, he is the most unpredictable, therefore he’s the most fascinating to watch. How is his fitness? He says he’ll be ready after a minor knee operation, let’s hope so.

Go on FIFA, give everyone a lift and take the 2022 World Cup away from Qatar

qatar world cup

This doesn’t apply to Qataris of course. It would be a shame for them. But honestly now, when will common sense, not to mention the bureaucratic influence of UEFA and it’s associations which make up the Champions League, the richest and most watched annual competition on the planet, finally take hold here?

That’s not to mention the whiff of corruption of vote buying surrounding the Qatari bid to help secure the tournament. Sepp Blatter is a crook, this we know, but he’s also a cockroach, and when push comes to shove he’ll cut bait. Already we’ve seen him deliver a rather pathetic and snide attempt at deflection, by suggesting the groundswell of indignation at the illegitimacy of the Qatar win is racially motivated. Truly a shameless twatcunt of man.

My guess? He’s not getting away with this one, he’ll hold out for as long as possible to save face, before backing down to save his own skin. There’ll be an investigation, some people will be found guilty, though the top people, including Blatter, will insulate themselves, and the 2022 world cup will be awarded, within the next two years, to Australia, the US, or even England, basically a first world country that already has the infrastructure in place to hold a major tournament on short(er) notice. Australia would make a good job of it I reckon. A World Cup final at the MCG would be right mate.

Argentina will disappoint, and so will Lionel Messi

messi

When I say Messi will disappoint, I do so relative to his ludicrously prolific form of many years for Barcelona. Replicating that in a side that’s clearly inferior doesn’t seem a realistic or fair expectation, but it’ll be there regardless.

I’m fascinated by this Argentina side. They have a preponderance of attacking talent, including the world’s best player, an utterly pedestrian midfield and a defence that’s less than the sum of its parts.

Key to their chances is how Messi will be utilised. Will he play as he does for Barcelona, or will he play in a more withdrawn position, with one or possibly two strikers ahead of him, or will he start wide, as he used to?

It would be a waste of Argentina’s resources if Aguero and or Higuain were shifted out of position, or out of the team altogether to satiate Messi’s insatiable drive to score goals by being placed furthest forward.

Recently there’s been some criticism from Barcelona fans towards Messi for being greedy, with his lack of work rate (at times) leading to accusations of decadence and his dictatorial influence over the club’s direction (transfer decisions and managerial appointments) becoming insidious to morale and team cohesiveness. True or not this version of Messi won’t translate well to this Argentina side, as it simply doesn’t have the Barcelona midfield apparatus which sets the platform to allow Messi to thrive. At Barcelona he’s also used to having two wingers as outlets, making runs, creating space for him and working primarily for him to benefit. Argentina has Angel Di Maria, but no other winger of top end quality.

You suspect it’ll be Messi behind Aguero and Higuain, with Di Maria in midfield. This puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the team, and Messi cannot afford to be as static when his team is without the ball as he can be for Barcelona. Bottom line, this side will struggle to keep possession against better sides, and it’ll cost them at some point.

I don’t buy the argument that Messi needs to win the World Cup to be considered one of the greatest ever players, as he clearly is already. Nobody throws such accusations at Yohann Cruyff or George Best. That said Messi could do with a good showing. He was a kid in Germany 2006, and had physical problems heading into South Africa 2010. There are excuses if Argentina fail to make any impression in the latter stages of the competition, but there’ll be few willing to excuse Messi if he fails to perform. I’m not saying any of this is fair on him, it isn’t, but you know what people are like with hyperbole. If a proclamation is made, and it isn’t fulfilled, then vilification usually follows. People don’t like being wrong, let alone admitting it.

While I’m at it, I fancy two other traditional contenders to disappoint – Italy and the Netherlands. I suspect the Dutch, relying on too many players now past their peak, will go out of a group that includes Chile and Spain. Italy will qualify for the knockout stages due to England being in their group, but this side lacks creativity and pace. I should know better than to write off the Italians in a major tournament, and it’ll probably come back to haunt me, but, whatever.

When it comes to the BBC and ITV’s coverage of the tournament, the mute button will be your best friend

chiles spastic

So then, how does the prospect of having your World Cup ruined by having to listen to the cliché spouting, agenda driven, borderline xenophobic and just down right uninformed ‘opinions’ and ‘commentary’ of such luminaries as Clive Tyldesley, Mark Lawrenson, Alan Shearer and Andy Townsend sound? I could go on but I really don’t want to. What a shower of fucking turds. No wonder Roy Keane quit ITV’s coverage, he could probably hear his brain melting for a start.

And then there’s Adrian Chiles. A regal cunt with a face like a downs syndrome pug whose default setting is permanent sarcasm. Surely he’ll be more erudite and insightful than this?

My advice, don’t give him, or any of them, the chance. Value your sanity. Mute ‘em.

Yes, you can’t write off Spain, but where are the goals coming from?

spain no striker

The defending world and European champions deserve your respect. No team in major tournament history (except maybe Brazil ‘82) have had a cache of midfield players with more technical or inventive quality to choose from. They’re the favourite until proven otherwise.

That said there are concerns. Can Xavi play seven matches in four weeks? Will Del Bosque play both Alonso and Busquets again at the expense of another attacking player? And on that point, will Spain even play with a recognised forward at all?

There have been times recently when they haven’t. A huge part of Spain’s success has been their ability to prevent the concession of goals through ball possession. Did you know that in the last ten knockout games of European Championships and World Cups, they’ve conceded no goals. None. Zero. Sadly this can lead to drab games, particularly if the opposition simply don’t have the balls and or the quality on the counter attack to worry Spain. Looking at the other sides in this competition, few look equipped to trouble the Spanish approach. Brazil yes, Germany maybe, though they’re a slightly inferior version of Spain with similar issues up front. After that it’s the likes of Argentina, Italy, France and the Dutch, who are all flawed in some way. Other sides like Uruguay and Chile have quality players in attack, but hand on heart can you see them beating Spain?

So I fully expect Spain to stick to what has worked for them, and they’ll be even more pragmatic now that David Villa and Fernando Torres are well past their meridians, and Diego Costa has only one appearance thus far. Hopefully this won’t cost us the chance of seeing a side that starts with David Silva, Iniesta and Cesc Fabregas together, but I suspect it will. Iniesta is a lock to start and the other attacking midfield position and false-nine winger position will be rotated heavily.

They’ll make the semi-finals, at least, so let’s hope they’re put under some pressure and we get to see a side that needs to showcase the attacking potency we know they possess.

The reasons Brazil will win the thing

WCUP SOC BRA DEU

Might as well start with this stat – Brazil’s last defeat on home soil in a competitive match was to Peru, in 1975.

A better reason is Phil Scolari knows what he wants to do, and has selected a squad equipped to carry out his orders. Some of the names might surprise you. Jo, likely to be sub, failed in England at Manchester City and Everton. He’s rehabilitated himself back in Brazil and he’s got pace and strength. That’s the theme of this team. It won’t be popular with the traditionalists and aesthetes, but these two attributes featured heavily in their success against Spain last summer, in the final of that spiteful, money grabbing creation, the Confederations Cup. Brazil were rapid on the counter attack, defended stoutly, and overpowered many of the Spanish players.

But being Brazil, they also have skill. Hulk, who is bulky and can look clunky, is dangerous in full flow. Fernandinho will add class as the ‘volante’ to a midfield full of athletes. Oscar is wasted at Chelsea by Shitcoat ball, but not by Brazil. Then there’s Neymar, who also doubles as one of the most hated people on Twitter, according to my feed. Perhaps it’s just the people I follow. Yes, he’s had a series of shit haircuts, yes he’s received too much attention too soon, yes he was sold for too much money to Barcelona, where he and the team underachieved last season, but for Brazil he’s the real deal.

On paper this doesn’t look like a great Brazil side, yet that was also said before the World Cup finals of 1994 and 2002, which they both won, and the opposite was true in 1982, when they were hailed as great and transcendent, only to be mugged by Paolo Rossi. The lesson? People know fuck all, and even less so when making predictions, so me being a person, a person who’s picking Brazil to win it all, doesn’t help matters.

Anyway that’s my take. Above all let’s hope the weather’s good, wherever you are, the tournament goes without a hitch, the quality of football’s high, the games are exciting, and there’s a bountiful amount of close-ups of fit girls in the crowd.

That’s not too much to ask for, is it?

Posted in Sports | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

UKIP’s rise? We’re all to blame.

FARAGE-hitler

I voted in the European Elections at my local polling station, the Gairbraid Church Hall in Maryhill. Having never been in it before I fully expected the interior to be transformed into a sparse state of temporary surrogacy, the mildly depressing phenotype decided upon for polling stations. And it was, what I didn’t expect was meeting the barricade of a huge heavy show-like curtain just inside the entrance. There was something both strange and satisfying at having to outstretch your arm in an exerted sweep to open it. It was an inelegant entrance to be equated with the wanting theatrical panache of pantomime, and there’s no doubt I looked completely ridiculous.

I’ll concede this is a silly aside, things really got interesting once I looked at my ballot paper. I was struck and slightly worried by the sheer number of candidates/parties I could vote for. I’ve seen bountiful options on a ballot before, but this seemed excessive. As best I can recall there were up to a dozen choices.

Appearing at the very top of the ballot was a party called “Britain First”. Somebody said once that I ‘knew fuck all’ but conceded a few years later that I ‘had now started to pick up a bit of knowledge, thankfully’. I started to doubt the sincerity and accuracy of the latter statement as I stared at the name “Britain First” and pondered for a few moments who and what they were, what they represented and most importantly the reasons I hadn’t heard of them before, and what this might mean. If you’re sensible, and occasionally I am, honest, you don’t vote for someone or something you know nothing or very little of.

I gleaned from the name alone – Britain First – that this was, at the very least, a party, whose central message, or one of them, is isolationism from the European Union. Later I was to find out that this was as benign a characterisation as they could be given.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and even more dangerous still is having none at all. Which brings us to the similarly isolationist UKIP – in this case a sentiment of theirs which is atypically genuine. All of us, even those who didn’t vote, either through apathy or a sense of disillusionment with the state of politics, or who are disinterested in politics full stop, will have heard of UKIP. It’s a given, what isn’t a given is how much you know about them.

Just as I knew ‘fuck all’ about Britain First, a dangerous rancid racist bunch of far right protestant ideologues, so I suspect most who voted for UKIP knew little about their policies.

Which brings us back to the result of the last general election and the how and why it was achieved. This set the template for UKIP’s success two weeks ago. When I say success, I do so pejoratively. They still have no MP’s in either Westminster or Holyrood, and while they did manage to win one of the six MEP spots for Scotland, they did so by barely getting ten percent of the vote nationwide.

Apathy and boredom with the incumbent government and at best an aversion to the hubris of Tony Blair’s brand of conviction politics, the kind that that resulted in the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, loomed over the build-up to the last general election. But fittingly that’s the style of rhetoric the main parties adopted when campaigning. David Cameron talked of a ‘Big Society’, Nick Clegg of a ‘real alternative’ and Ed Milliband, well, just talked. It was a campaign of cheap Nu-Labour-esque slogans, with what appeared to be a distinct lack of policy divergence between the main parties. This allowed the wearied to be swayed by the superficial notion of change for the sake of it, and even then that wasn’t enough for any party to gain a majority.

Appropriately the malaise resulted in something far worse than what preceded it: another leader ridden with conceit, David Cameron, who married the worst facets of Thatcher and Blair. It was noticeable that all of the main parties talked about the need for austerity, NHS reform, creating jobs and yes, immigration. It was important to note that immigration was a debating point well before UKIP arrived as a mainstream entity, and no, Nigel Farage’s unfortunate escape from a plane crash doesn’t count, nor does the various faux-pas committed by the anachronistically clown like Godfrey Bloom.

If no discernable mainstream alternative is offered to the electorate it creates a spectrum of disenfranchisement ranging from apathy to dissention. People need to feel that their votes mean something, that they have a choice that will pay real dividends. When they don’t, as they do with the current Westminster hegemony, that’s when those with extreme ideologies on the fringes can gain traction, providing they themselves make a concerted effort to adopt the customary etiquette and style of mainstream politics. We can say we want change, but seemingly we don’t want to change this standard. So we cannot complain when a far right party like UKIP takes advantage.

In the aftermath of UKIP’s ‘success’ in the European elections, and the local elections in England and Wales, there has been a succession of hand-wringing and folk foaming at the mouth at mainstream politics, politicians, the media, or gullible voters for helping UKIP manoeuvre themselves and their message of immigration into the mainstream consciousness, and permeating how the debate on that issue has been framed since.

But both they and it have never been away. Just as Enoch Powell gave his rivers of blood speech in the late sixties, Nigel Farage is demonising Romanians and Bulgarians now. This stuff works you see, especially at times when the mediocrity of our culture and society is unassailable and dissatisfaction and self loathing are rampant. UKIP are the perfect embodiment of that decline.

On the surface it appears that UKIP aren’t true and overt fascists, especially not when compared with the likes Britain First or the laughable BNP. Being compared to the lunatic fringe who picket mosques allows them to avoid the tag of extremism, while covertly serving their true purpose – as the latest incarnate for the embittered to cling to. They are the party of absolution. They represent the idea that your inadequacies are in fact strengths or at worst can be sublimated comparatively by the inadequacies of others. Who doesn’t want to hear and believe that you’re better than someone else, that your culture is better than someone else’s, and that it belongs to you?

It feeds the arrogance of the middle class aspirational attitude of self-entitlement that Thatcher sought to inculcate and succeeded in doing so. This has been built on a cultural identity predicated on borders, nationality, antiquated allegiances to a monarchy, and a tradition of successes in World Wars and of creating ‘the’ empire. If you’ve been groomed within this delusional sub-culture you’re liable to lament the comparative reality of the day, where we were once successful in generating wealth through the annexation of other inferior cultures, and civilising them too, now they’re coming here from all over the globe and doing it to us.

So I find it most interesting that the media’s incessant intrigue in UKIP has been held up as one of the main causations of its success. I find this to be as disingenuous a position as the one held by UKIP and its voters. Both elide the responsibility of critical thinking.

Of course I’m not absolving the print and television media. They are culpable as tabloid journalism – whether it’s on screen, on paper or online – is by its very construct a lazy paradigm, and a story that sells itself is always news worthy. For them it’s easy to sell a narrative, especially those that are peculiar, perverse and or ugly, and this covers all three. Such events, people and in this case political sleeze often evoke a state of navel gazing or moralising, often on an intellectual level that suits its reader/viewer. Just as the Daily Express won’t stop harping on about Diana’s death, or all the tabloids about what happened to Madeleine McCann, so they’ll prop up UKIP, a party all too willing to self promote its message, or to be more specific, a series of claims as to what it represents.

It’s been claimed that news stories of this ilk are perpetuated by public interest, or is it the media’s reporting of them that drives it? In this age of instantaneous often misreported news that answer is less important, as UKIP exemplify perfectly. The laziness of tabloid reporting is reciprocated by that of its audience in questioning its validity and failing to thoroughly investigate the true nature of the subject themselves.

To those who refused or cared not to vote: a threat still remains a threat even if you choose to ignore it. The basis and totality of the rise of UKIP’s popularity is based on the notion of what we assume them to be, or what we want them to be and to represent, not by finding out what they actually are. This applies to those who are opposed or disposed to their crude, divisive stance on immigration. The policy of immigration and their focus on it is designed not to encourage further investigation.

This is where personal responsibility factors in. With a multitude of methods and mediums, McDonald’s tries daily to sell me their rancid produce, yet I elect not to buy it. Just as I choose to ignore UKIP’s divisive language on immigration, instead I can focus on their policies of complete NHS privatisation, their catastrophic 31% flat tax rate, their idiotic position on EU membership and some of the crackpot views of their party members. All of this information is readily available.

The question then becomes how do you motivate people to ask questions? Those of us who do certainly aren’t going to encourage them by demeaning and lambasting confessed UKIP voters as uneducated and ignorant. Social media gives us the ability to share knowledge, only for us to spend more time hounding individuals, than attacking the endemic cultural standards which creates these flaws. There’s selfishness in this behaviour, we’re only interested in better educating ourselves, yet when the inequality this creates fails others, who then fail themselves and others too, we blame and demonise them, further ghettoising them as outsiders. It just makes the messages of parties like UKIP seem more appealing.

We saw this in full force in the aftermath of the EU result for Scotland, with UKIP gaining enough votes to send a representative to Brussels, the appropriately disgusting David Coburn. The sense of overwhelming embarrassment – though he probably won’t even attend much – lead to goats escaping all over the place. I even entered the fray on Twitter with a disparaging jibe that voting for UKIP shows how much you love Christmas. All this achieved was a momentary feeling of smugness and superiority, levity similar to that experienced by your average UKIPPER after telling a Bulgarian to fuck off home. It soon dissipated when nobody read the tweet, and even had they done so, what good would it do?

Speaking of not doing much good, and avoiding the issue, that would be bashing the BBC. The beeb has become one of the main punching bags in light of UKIP’s rising popularity. It’s become a running joke of sorts as to the number of appearances that Nigel Farage and other ghastly UKIP party members have made, particularly on the deeply flawed (in premise and execution) Question Time, when they have no elected MP’s in parliament. Question Time was always rubbish, but it has rapidly decayed into a free for all of lies, petty squabbling, grandstanding, doublespeak and blame games. It mirrors the political climate accurately, and as such it lets UKIP off the hook, to an extent.

The BBC is supposed to be impartial, that Farage has appeared on Question Time often, too often, puts that into question, and it makes it easier to argue that this has helped UKIP significantly. It’s fair to pose the question as to whether the disproportional preponderance of UKIP members on their weekly panels is due to an editorial preference based on a political ideology, or is it a consequence of a cynical and self defeating need for ratings? Either way Question Time reflects very poorly on the state of the BBC’s politically related programming.

I suffered through one of the episodes of Question Time on which Farage appeared, and despite the mediocrity of the panel, including the self regarding and hypocritical Dimbelby as chair, Farage struggled, like a used car salesman who knew he was trying to sell a dodgy old banger. His answers, even on the topic of immigration, were unconvincing blabber at best, and borderline lunacy at worst, but some in the audience applauded for him, and many voted for him and his party last month. There are, usually, at least two ways to look at such a dichotomy. Either giving Farage a platform helped him con the gullible, or that the more exposure he’s granted, the shorter the length of rope he requires to hang himself becomes. In this case both happened; Farage hanged himself, only for hundreds and thousands of others to agree to join his suicide pact.

And this is the crux of the matter, in the end people tend to believe what suits them and the prevailing agenda(s) they have. Usually these agendas work to distract us, and having something to rail against makes us feel that we’re relevant. Whether it be voting for UKIP because it suited your notion of what’s right and fair, wanting the BBC to lose its right to public funding, due to Farage and UKIP’s appearances on one particular show out of the thousands of others the BBC makes, or because of a perceived editorial slanting against Scottish independence by its news division. All of it is indicative of culture that thinks small and doesn’t think about the wider ramifications.

So, I think it’s only fitting that when I vote again on the 18th of September I will do so to suit my own agenda. I’ll be voting Yes to ensure the opportunity of creating an economic and social climate where the ten percent living in Scotland that voted for UKIP won’t be left behind and alienated into feeling that they have to do so again.

I’m not arrogant enough to espouse any certainty that a Yes vote will achieve this, or that it will change things for the better. The only certainty is the future is uncertain, but at this time there’s a psychological difference between a Yes or No vote; one offers the freedom to think without the imposition of tradition, the other asks us to believe and confine ourselves in that tradition, that remaining the same, and that doing the same thing over and over again, will eventually work.

As per tradition I fully expect UKIP will fail, relative to their success last month, at the next general election. Their recent victories will serve as a temporary wake up call that occurs when conformity, which enables us to be contented and to abdicate the need to truly think big and empathetically, is threatened. Voting against UKIP for either the Tories or Labour will be seen as doing enough, so the narrative will shift to UKIP’s decline, meanwhile too many in the United Kingdom will still be none the wiser, hopefully by then in an independent Scotland we will be.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Song Of The Day – Chicken Yiamas by Von Südenfed

From the album ‘Tromatic Reflexxions’ (2007)

Posted in Song Of The Day | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Song Of The Day – St. James Infirmary by Allen Toussaint

From the album ‘The Bright Mississippi’ (2009)

Posted in Song Of The Day | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gibberish Rhymes For Insane Times

I’ve got gibberish rhymes,

For these insane times

 

A green antelope

Looks forwards,

But walks backwards

Up a slope

Is this a trope?

Or are you on dope?

 

Is it okay to say innit?

If you eat a giblet,

On a boat, in an inlet

Are we bargaining yet?

Go on have another bet

Depression is just regret.

 

Do something strange,

Ask someone for change

As you squat on a driving range,

Or on a golf course,

While having a discourse

About your impending divorce

 

Why not buy a subway footlong?

You know why it’s shaped oblong?

So you can shove it up yer arse

But you better make its filling sparse,

Or you’ll sing a high pitched song

About not being able to wear a thong

 

Have you been to Scarborough fair?

It’s just like anywhere

Plastic bags in trees,

That apathetic disease,

Spreads on a breeze

To Stockton-on-tees

 

The world’s our dust bin,

Existing inside a biscuit tin

Resting on a fat man’s chin

It’s our psychotic twin

That cuts up credit cards,

Sharp like glass shards

 

Where else? On the telly

Some Yank blew his brains away,

While I listened to Krautrock

It was quite a shock,

That the sight of blood spray

Is better to Can’s strings of jelly

 

Then some old has been

Claimed it was his dream

To proliferate a scene

Like filling water with chlorine

Just need to think of a theme,

You know what I mean?

 

Nope. So are you alone?

Like that potato scone

You left in a cool throne

Launched a drone,

That left the others to bemoan

Shattered skin and bone

 

That made front page news,

Designed by Palestinian Jews

Putin’s got a Ukrainian muse,

I got me some UKIP views

‘bout the cause of their ascent:

Too thick, like Arnie’s accent

 

I looked, didn’t even try,

At a woman walking by

In a leather jacket and pink heels,

While her spare tyre squeals

It’ll give everyone ideals

About buying kids happy meals

 

Ahh Children, the future they say,

Finding wasteland, again today

Set all the books on fire,

As light entertainment is dire

Surely there’s a man you can hire,

To commit suicide with chicken wire?

 

Yes, these are insane times

So are these gibberish rhymes?

Posted in Crap Poetry Corner | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment