Will the Coalition be Reforming the British Honours System?

Now that the new Coalition government seems to be sweeping the country with their reforms of one kind or another, will they also be tackling the last vestige of white supremacy while they are at it? The last insult to a multicultural society?

Last June, the usual crop of public honours recipients was announced in London. The Queen's Birthday and New Years' Honours Lists "reflect and pay tribute to outstanding achievement and service right across the community" says the blurb, but often one wonders which community it's dealing with because the people who do receive the very top honours are seldom the ones who would be recognised by the general community.

The awards system, which still carries the obnoxious tag of 'Empire', and glory in its colonial legacy and traditions, is still alive and well when it should have been pensioned off years ago. With whiffs of honours for sale, it is about time this particular heritage is retired gracefully and something more reflective of modern society and true merit introduced in its place. Britain prides itself on its equal opportunities and diverse multicultural society, yet, just casting a glance at the Knights and Dames honours, as in every past year, men outnumber women by nearly 3 to 1 and very few minorities achieve the very highest ranks like Commanders of Knights. From the spread of honours, one can assume that men are more deserving than women and Whites more deserving than Blacks. Nothing that has lasted so many years can still serve a different society today in an efficient way, and in the same form, when we have advanced in amazing ways and with constantly changing perspectives.

I mean, a lady running her business successfully for over 50 years gets a mere OBE. Yet still active in her nineties! What on earth does she have to do to get the CBE or Damehood? Another 50 years?

I would scrap this outdated and exclusive honours system if I were David Cameron. It is getting really tired and irrelevant now in the way they are still awarded on class lines and still refer to that great 'Empire' which has an invisible location to the British public. Where exactly do we find this British Empire? Perhaps if we stopped hanging on to the past and looked to our future we would be even greater than before. To award a member of a minority group with a reminder of a discriminatory, racist and repressive colonial regime is disrespectful and offensive in this global age.

We are now desperate for an inclusive MODERN awards system that one does not have to pay money for, which will apply right across the board to everyone in our multicultural society; one which will reflect the national pride we should feel for Britain TODAY, not yesterday. An award system to help bind the country together as one in a spirit of achievement and togetherness, not keep people artificially apart and stuck in yesteryear! Is that the best we can do now to recognise our people?

These awards are an anachronism in today's technological 21st century world. The quicker that is realised and acted upon, the more the credibility of the British honours system will be restored and the more reflective of its multicultural society it will gradually become.

Why I LOVE my new Prime Minister, David Cameron!

On the 6th of May, 2010, when the British general election results were announced, I was secretly pleased that the Conservatives had not received enough votes to form a government, while being keenly disappointed that the LibDems had actually lost seats. I had hoped that they would have had a massive increase in their seats in Parliament due to what the polls had been saying before the election. I was also torn between whom their leader, Nick Clegg, should support to form a coalition, as Labour seemed a more natural choice of partner compared to the Conservatives, whom I've always disliked, but I also wanted a fresh team after the 13 years Labour had already enjoyed.

In the event, the Conservatives rightfully won out over Labour, especially as they had the most seats and David Cameron became Prime Minister. The country waited with bated breath for the new political coalition to get off the ground, while dire predictions of its imminent demise frequently peppered the air! I preferred to wait and see, with some scepticism, especially after the shock of seeing how the coalition was actually arranged, who actually benefited from it, and the direction it was to take. Until now.

This week, the United Kingdom, this great country, found its international voice again, no longer muted by fear, factions or the folly of an unjust war. No more diplomatic niceties or flim-flam. It gave a very loud and clear message to the world that Britain - the national corporation - was back in business again, and firmly on the side of justice, no matter in what quarter, and I felt extremely proud to be British. On his trip to Turkey, Mr Cameron left no one in any doubt about the smelling carcass of a stagnant Middle East situation. He accused Israel of turning the Gaza strip into an "open prison camp" by blockading vital supplies to the area and then warned that "Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp". Indeed.

That was music to my ears because anyone who could actually condone what has been happening in Gaza, to turn their back on a people who are suffering deliberately through the insensitive and cruel efforts of another country, cannot have much humanity in them. Such action has been plainly wrong, no matter the reason for it, and was crying out for some real leadership on the issue. It took guts to ignore the diplomatic niceties of hypocrites and say it like it is, and I applaud him for it. No, not just applaud him. I love the guy's sincerity and courage in setting a new marker on international behaviour. He's got it spot on in view of the lawlessness that seemed to have overtaken our world, especially in view of some of Israel's recent cavalier action.


Building a New Perspective
As I wrote in 2006 when Israel attacked Lebanon (12 Lessons in Life): "We do not overcome evil by becoming evil ourselves. In that awful moment of madness, we lose our self-respect and our integrity, falling from the moral high ground of justice to land with a thud on the same low level of injustice perpetrated by our oppressors."

By saying a simple truth, which our American allies, through their backing of Israel seem unable to say, David Cameron can help everyone to build on a new perspective of justice without fear, and start a real healing process in this fractured situation. But that wasn't all.

Yesterday, in view of the leaks about Afghanistan, Cameron went to India and again spoke out about another thorny issue: the two-faced nature of Pakistan's diplomacy regarding terrorism, telling them that they cannot play it both sides and then expect the right results. He said they were "promoting the export of terror" and it was intolerable for that country to "look both ways" in view of all the atrocities associated with terrorism. Sensible words from a sensible leader!

In the current global economic climate, strong leadership is necessary to take us out of the downturn and into a better period of growth and stability. I have always admired Cameron himself ever since he took over as opposition leader, though not his party. I felt the Tories were usually for big business and not exactly welcoming of minorities! I used to wish he was leading Labour or the LibDems, so I had mixed feelings with the election results. Today I feel awfully proud to have a Prime Minister who seems unafraid to tackle the real issues and to say it like it is. That means a lot to me because achieving real justice is never easy. It is about compassion, trust and sacrifice, hence why it is always easier to blow with the wind than to stand up for one's beliefs.

The BBC's headline on the India trip said "Candid Cameron ruffles diplomatic feathers". Well, that's great news. Time for some feathers to be ruffled, or even plucked, because the current status quo is not yielding much by way of solutions.

The Telegraph lauded Cameron's visit with President Obama saying how the Conservatives and coalition government should be proud of him and his performance, as he was clearly the stronger leader in the exchanges. I say we should all be very proud of him because, at last, we have a real Prime Minister who is not afraid of taking the initiative, making decisions, even tough ones, or speaking out. A true leader in every sense of the word. Watch the mood of the country now changes from uncertainty to confidence. With such a transparent Prime Minister, it can only lead to more trust and self-belief.

Suddenly the future looks very bright! :o)

(Tonight the BBC is airing a programme "5 Days That Changed Britain" on BBC 2 at 2100 GMT, regarding the general election and the frenzied activity to form a coalition after the results became known. It should be very interesting viewing.)

Telegraph: A new foreign policy is taking shape under David Cameron but is it Tory or Lib Dem?
(A steely determination can be detected in the Coalition's attitude, argues Benedict Brogan.)

Five Lessons From The 2010 FIFA World Cup

The FIFA 2010 World Cup has ended on a high with lots of credits to the host, South Africa. The party is over and the clearing up has now begun, along with the reflection on what happened, remorse by the 'losers', regret on what could have been and new resolve for the future. The next four years will be one of soul searching and debate by all the world's teams as to how they can do better.

However, there seems to be five major lessons to be taken from the tournament and, in order of importance, they are:

1. The TEAM is the essence of winning anything, not the individual.
Long before the World Cup began we heard how great players like Ronaldo(Portugal), Rooney(England), Messi(Argentina) and Kaka (Brazil) would shine in the competition. We would be exposed to their genius and marvel at it. They would inspire the rest of their teams to victory. Like hell. They were all sent packing by virtual unknowns such as Gyan (Ghana), Klose (Germany) and Andres Iniesta(Spain). What was significant about these winning players was their complete acceptance that the team mattered much more than the individual and they all supported each other. Each was but one player in it, no matter how they individually performed.

For example, Cesc Fabregas (Spain) set up the winning goal that Andres Iniesta crashed into the net. Then he quickly removed his shirt to show the memory of a player who should have been with them but had died of a heart attack in August 2009 - Daniel Jarque. At that supreme moment of triumph, the team did not forget one of their own and the simple inscription on the t-shirt ("Dani Jarque, always with us") ensured that the dead team member shared in that amazing moment too. A greater team spirit one could not have witnessed. Since Spain's victory, as before it, the focus has been on the whole team, not just the guy who scored. He merely completed the hard work and effort of his other teammates. Iniesta did not do it all by himself. He just happened to have the skill for making that goal just as his teammates exhibited their skills in other aspects of the game. When there is too much emhpasis on any one team player it demoralises the others who are likely to believe that their skills are not appreciated, which then affect team cohesion, communication and performance.

2. With the increasing use of technology and a growing global audience, the World Cup competition, as we knew it, is over
The 2010 World Cup was on a different level and scale from what it used to be when it was dominated by the usual South American and European teams. The World Cup has grown so big, with so much potential for national identification and promotion, it is no longer just the pinnacle of a popular game but a real source of national pride. Every country will now want a piece of that global action and they will be fighting very hard to get it. It means that the usual teams (like England, Brazil, Argentina etc) who would have expected to head for the finals almost automatically will now have a hard battle on their hands as countries like the USA, Ghana, Spain and Netherlands (those who have been in the background) begin fighting for centre-stage. Making it to the quarter-final, let alone the final, will be a very hard task for some teams in the future, as competition for the 32 coveted spots in the World Cup finals begins in earnest.


3. Good football will always win out
It was clear that Spain and the Netherlands had different playing styles. For the Netherlands it was a more aggressive approach, stopping the Spanish progression by fair means or foul, while for the Spaniards the aim was to get that goal through a natural rhythm of playing and passing. The Dutch style led to a lot of fouls, yellow cards, a sending off, and the odd vicious encounter while the Spaniards took home the prize with their persistent and professional play. Winning or losing at this level of the sport should be done with dignity and mutual respect. Not conducted like a market brawl, because only one team can ever win.

4. Technology is needed for ensuring that any decision relating to a goal is the right one
England was disallowed a perfectly good goal at a crucial point in their game. Who knows what might have happened if they had drawn level with Germany? One cannot underestimate the motivating power of coming from behind to level the stakes. A goal is the ultimate objective of football. It cannot be left to chance anymore because referees are not supremos. They are fallible human beings. Time for technology to do its job where goals are concerned. One cannot put total emphasis on getting goals in this competition then pretend that a goal doesn't really matter at crucial moments of the game.

5. Anything is possible when we have self-belief and feel ready for it
For the past six years since South Africa was awarded the World Cup games to host, the army of naysayers has been casting the most dire predictions about the outcome: the stadia wouldn't be ready, violent crime would be rife, the public wouldn't support the games, Africa wasn't ready for staging the games...and so on. Today South Africa can boast hosting one of the most successful games of all time. In fact, attendance at all the matches totalled 3.15 millions, second only to the American-held World Cup of 1994 which had 3.58 millions; the vuvuzela which is now worldwide was introduced; the welcome of visitors was second to none and the sheer scale of the organisation and the professionalism was breathtaking to see. South Africans today can feel proud of themselves having asserted the country globally as a future venue for any event, which can only help them economically in the long run, while also affecting the perception of the continent as a whole.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup was an impressive display of gamesmanship, a fine example of sports at its best; a unifier of countries and a showcase for individual and team potential, not to mention the economic benefits it now affords at all levels of organisation. Long may it continue.



Photos courtesy of FIFA.com

English Football Debate (2): How the British media is strangling football talent with their burden of expectations and reporting extremes

(huffingtonpress.com)

On Tuesday morning the English football team returned from the FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Disillusioned, exhausted and dejected, they came face to face with a barrage of headlines about their failures and disasters, not least one that said "The Flops Come Home". Today, the men are still followed on their deserved holiday with stories screeching how The Flops are taking holidays while the fans are still unhappy. While the players rightly get on with their lives, acknowledging that they played a match and it's over, and it's time to look towards the next one, some sections of the British media are still bashing them, still bleating and whimpering, taking football out of all proportion to its role in our lives.

The British media is responsible for a lot that has happened in South Africa and continues to happen in our sports. They love to raise players to the heights of demi-gods when it suits their purposes, and especially when those players are performing well, then waste little time in knocking them back down to the ground with vitriolic content, all in the drive to sell papers. They love to hype the team up before a match, burdening them with unrealistic expectations, then vilifying them after any bad performance - from one extreme to the other. That is very bad psychologically and emotionally for the players.

Playing any kind of game is an ongoing activity, a continual 'war' with many battles. In the bid to develop the best team, some battles will be lost, just as many will be won. World Cup football is not a one-off performance where the players won't be doing anything after that. There are tons more competitions to come. It means that no matter what the team is participating in, the media need to bear that crucial fact in mind. When they run players down after every match, how does that affect them? How does that restore their confidence, build their morale and instill a winners' mindset to do even better next time? After all, if one keeps constantly whacking a goose that lays golden eggs because the goose is not laying them quickly enough, soon there will be a dead goose and no eggs at all!

The country those players represent is also their 'family'. When our family, the closest to us, rejects us too, what then? Whom do we have on our side? To whom can we turn? Would we really wish to represent that family again? If our team loses abroad, especially on the world stage, no one can underestimate just how much loss of pride, prestige and reputation they immediately suffer. To then have their own country rejecting them too in that vitriolic way is not a winning formula for the future. It will simply lead to more of the same. There is a fundamental reason for that.


(Before the World Cup, the Sun touts England's perceived 'easy' time with the draw they have had.)

The Results of Negative Attacks
When we knock players every time they lose, instead of acknowledging what they have achieved up to that point, we instill shame and fear inside of them: fear of taking risks, fear of the consequences of their actions and fear of failure. Yet failure and success are two sides of the same coin. People fail only when the fear of failure has taken them over and they have lost faith in their ability to win. The more they are bashed for those failures is the less self-belief they have, the more difficult it is for them to believe they have the talent to win and the worse they perform when it matters. Fear destroys, it doesn't build. Yet the players need failures to learn. They need to take risks and they need mistakes to improve their art. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the trouncing by Germany will probably do far more to hone the team's skills and potential than anything else they have encountered. That's why Fabio Capello was absolutely right when he stressed business as usual and started looking forward to the future.

Participating in the FIFA World Cup is not an automatic right. It is a hard fought competitive event which is getting more difficult each year as more and more countries vie for the prestige and media glory of being involved in it. For the record, since 1950 when England began to enter the World Cup, the team has participated in 13 of the 16 possible events, winning one of them and reaching the quarter-finals in another six. That means they have done extremely well 81% of the time. That doesn't sound like losers to me! Only three occasions did they not qualify.

More important, England has a competition all time rank of being No. 5 of the 76 countries which have qualified for the World Cup down the years. That means only Brazil, Germany, Italy and Argentina rank above them. They are also No. 8 in the whole world, of all the 202 countries who play the sport. Those high rankings do not suggest 'flops', 'awful' 'rubbish' players. They suggest a team that has continuously delivered high standards of football, albeit erratically, and have always performed at a level only dreamed of by most of their opponents. English football is the envy of the world, especially the Premier League which attracts foreign managers like bees to honey.

Time to stop insulting our boys and encourage them instead. To accept that we are nurturing a winning team, not just a team to win one-off matches; accept that defeat and success have to be taken in stride in order for the team to be ready psychologically to fight another day, get over it and move on. Our life is dictated by our thought processes. When we dwell on failure, instead of moving briskly on, that is all we get - more failure. We cannot get glory and achievement out of negative thoughts and actions. We have to think like winners, act like winners and be treated like winners.

Germany's Thomas Mueller, who scored two goals against England, made the best comment so far. He said England needed younger hungrier players "prepared to make sacrifices". The team had "too many chiefs and not enough indians". That is a very important point the team managers need to consider. But when the team loses, the press should acknowledge it, and perhaps feel sad for it. But, above all, remind the team where they are coming from and where they still could reach, and get behind their efforts. That is the true role of a sensible media. Otherwise the labels the media are currently so willing to pin on to the players could all become horrible self fulfilling prophecies!