Overseas obvention...

Sounds good but not sure it would be a resounding success: all 20 clubs in the English Premier League have agreed the possibility of extending the normal season to 39 games. That would seem a bit odd except that the extra games would be played at venues around the world, with those cities interested bidding for the right to stage them; if it all gets the green light then it could happen by 2010.

"Cities in Asia, Middle East and North America are likely to show a strong interest in hosting the extra games"

...yep I can understand that: Arsenal, Manure, Liverfluke, Chelski...the bidding will be high;

"A number of top-flight clubs already play matches around the world as they seek to capitalise on the huge global interest in the English game."

Sure, however, how much thought have they given this?...and no offence meant, but just who and how much would be bid for Blackburn vs. Wigan or Middlesbrough vs. Bolton?

Overseas obvention...

Sounds good but not sure it would be a resounding success: all 20 clubs in the English Premier League have agreed the possibility of extending the normal season to 39 games. That would seem a bit odd except that the extra games would be played at venues around the world, with those cities interested bidding for the right to stage them; if it all gets the green light then it could happen by 2010.

"Cities in Asia, Middle East and North America are likely to show a strong interest in hosting the extra games"

...yep I can understand that: Arsenal, Manure, Liverfluke, Chelski...the bidding will be high;

"A number of top-flight clubs already play matches around the world as they seek to capitalise on the huge global interest in the English game."

Sure, however, how much thought have they given this?...and no offence meant, but just who and how much would be bid for Blackburn vs. Wigan or Middlesbrough vs. Bolton?

Observing one-offs...

I was interested to read [Yahoo!] that "the New York Giants thrilling win over the New England Patriots was the most-watched Super Bowl ever, with 97.5 million viewers, Nielsen Media Research said Monday", not including under 2 year-old of course (see key below the list)...I was more interested to read that it is the second most-watched TV broadcast ever; even the peak viewing in the 4th quarter didn't beat the previous record.

The audience peaked between 9:30 and 10 p.m. ET -the fourth quarter -with 105.7 million people watching, Nielsen said.

That record is held by...wait for it... the "M-A-S-H" finale in 1983; 106 million viewers and being 25 years ago only makes it more impressive there having been less channels and less TV's! Fancy a 'soap', albeit a bloody good one, getting so many viewers, that couldn't happen anywhere but the USA I thought...however, out of interest I wondered what would be the equivalent in the UK...and now, at long last I have discovered something that may make me want to change my nationality - I don't mean one-off events like the 1966 footy World Cup Final or the emotion-fest funeral of Princess Diana...no I mean TV shows...also nearly a quarter century ago...any guesses?...OH THE SHAME. I'm sure available choice would have had a lot to do with it, after all the UK only got Channel 4 in 1982 (note to US readers...no, that '4' isn't a typo!) however... they're still top now, albiet with less than half the number of viewers.

Observing one-offs...

I was interested to read [Yahoo!] that "the New York Giants thrilling win over the New England Patriots was the most-watched Super Bowl ever, with 97.5 million viewers, Nielsen Media Research said Monday", not including under 2 year-old of course (see key below the list)...I was more interested to read that it is the second most-watched TV broadcast ever; even the peak viewing in the 4th quarter didn't beat the previous record.

The audience peaked between 9:30 and 10 p.m. ET -the fourth quarter -with 105.7 million people watching, Nielsen said.

That record is held by...wait for it... the "M-A-S-H" finale in 1983; 106 million viewers and being 25 years ago only makes it more impressive there having been less channels and less TV's! Fancy a 'soap', albeit a bloody good one, getting so many viewers, that couldn't happen anywhere but the USA I thought...however, out of interest I wondered what would be the equivalent in the UK...and now, at long last I have discovered something that may make me want to change my nationality - I don't mean one-off events like the 1966 footy World Cup Final or the emotion-fest funeral of Princess Diana...no I mean TV shows...also nearly a quarter century ago...any guesses?...OH THE SHAME. I'm sure available choice would have had a lot to do with it, after all the UK only got Channel 4 in 1982 (note to US readers...no, that '4' isn't a typo!) however... they're still top now, albiet with less than half the number of viewers.

Orinoco outflow...

...and this time I don't mean the oil. In December last year Barcelona resident John Carlin reported on "the remarkable collusion between Colombia's rebels and its neighbour's armed forces" the article was published in the Spanish daily El País, 'revealing', with witness testimonies what many have known/suspected for a long while: the "Chávez role in cocaine trail to Europe"; today it was published in The Observer.

"The varied testimonies I have heard reveal that the co-operation between Venezuela and the guerrillas in transporting cocaine by land, air and sea is both extensive and systematic. Venezuela is also supplying arms to the guerrillas, offering them the protection of their armed forces in the field, and providing them with legal immunity de facto as they go about their giant illegal business."

It has taken seven weeks for the story to reach the UK press, presumably publication was delayed to allow the successful release of hostages [CNN] - negotiations assisted by you know who. The article pretty much lays it all out without much room for doubt unless of course some or all of the sources aren't telling the truth! Somehow it just all rings true.

"All the sources I reached agreed that powerful elements within the Venezuelan state apparatus have forged a strong working relationship with Farc. They told me that Farc and Venezuelan state officials operated actively together on the ground, where military and drug-trafficking activities coincide. But the relationship becomes more passive, they said, less actively involved, the higher up the Venezuelan government you go. No source I spoke to accused Chávez himself of having a direct role in Colombia's giant drug-trafficking business. Yet the same people I interviewed struggled to believe that Chávez was not aware of the collusion between his armed forces and the leadership of Farc, as they also found it difficult to imagine that he has no knowledge of the degree to which Farc is involved in the cocaine trade."

Perhaps now that this is getting more column inches in Europe it will shed light on the those that overtly support him, and I don't mean message-board extremists, I mean mayors of major capital cities..."As part of the original deal with Mr Livingstone, which has been in the works for at least a year, the mayor of London’s office had pledged to "actively and efficiently promote Venezuela’s image in the UK".

Orinoco outflow...

...and this time I don't mean the oil. In December last year Barcelona resident John Carlin reported on "the remarkable collusion between Colombia's rebels and its neighbour's armed forces" the article was published in the Spanish daily El País, 'revealing', with witness testimonies what many have known/suspected for a long while: the "Chávez role in cocaine trail to Europe"; today it was published in The Observer.

"The varied testimonies I have heard reveal that the co-operation between Venezuela and the guerrillas in transporting cocaine by land, air and sea is both extensive and systematic. Venezuela is also supplying arms to the guerrillas, offering them the protection of their armed forces in the field, and providing them with legal immunity de facto as they go about their giant illegal business."

It has taken seven weeks for the story to reach the UK press, presumably publication was delayed to allow the successful release of hostages [CNN] - negotiations assisted by you know who. The article pretty much lays it all out without much room for doubt unless of course some or all of the sources aren't telling the truth! Somehow it just all rings true.

"All the sources I reached agreed that powerful elements within the Venezuelan state apparatus have forged a strong working relationship with Farc. They told me that Farc and Venezuelan state officials operated actively together on the ground, where military and drug-trafficking activities coincide. But the relationship becomes more passive, they said, less actively involved, the higher up the Venezuelan government you go. No source I spoke to accused Chávez himself of having a direct role in Colombia's giant drug-trafficking business. Yet the same people I interviewed struggled to believe that Chávez was not aware of the collusion between his armed forces and the leadership of Farc, as they also found it difficult to imagine that he has no knowledge of the degree to which Farc is involved in the cocaine trade."

Perhaps now that this is getting more column inches in Europe it will shed light on the those that overtly support him, and I don't mean message-board extremists, I mean mayors of major capital cities..."As part of the original deal with Mr Livingstone, which has been in the works for at least a year, the mayor of London’s office had pledged to "actively and efficiently promote Venezuela’s image in the UK".

Objurgation of overspending...

Update Sunday February 3rd: The race for transparency begins: Ben Wallace, a Conservative Party MP, "has broken ranks" with the seemingly all-party 'let's hope it goes away and people will forget how much we claim': he is the first UK Member of Parliament to publish a complete breakdown of his annual Commons expenses. [Times]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this week's The Spectator Fraiser Nelson expounds on the nepotist shenanigans in the UK of ex-Conservative Party MP Derek Conway. Despite the news rumbling on all week, compared to other such circuses, the headlines and reaction could almost be described as a defeaning silence. Nobody is screaming; all parties speak in hushed tones of a need to perhaps introduce a ban on family members being employed by MP's. What it has also done is pretty much let New Labour and Gordon Brown 'off the hook'...they're not cleared by any means but they have been gifted the spiking a few opposition guns; as Nelson puts it:

"But the damage is nonetheless done. The word ‘Conway’ will now silence any Conservative seeking to chide Labour for financial impropriety. Mr Brown may well be struggling against the weight of five financial scandals (two now the subject of criminal investigations). But he can now say, as Jack Straw did on Wednesday morning, that all parties have trouble with finance. To the immense frustration of the shadow cabinet, they are in no position to argue."

To put it another way for an ex-tory boy like me: it's so bloody frustrating! That said I believe there should be a major cutting and capping of expenses: they've risen by over 50% in only 5 or 6 years (!!!) and of all MP's only 3 ...yes, THREE...have expenses below £90,000 (the average is almost £136 thousand!). Labour's Shahid Malik was highest at £185,421 and Conservative Philip Hollobone claimed the least - £44,551. Now....looking at that last figure, it's 75% of an MP's salary - surely that is enough? The second lowest is more than twenty thousand above Mr. Hollobone. Maybe you'd think he doesn't do a lot; you'd be wrong, he is well above average both in action/committees/voting etc. [They work for you] Check your MP's expenses claim HERE (opens Excel spreadsheet)

Back to Nelson Fraiser, "If Gordon wins next time, the Derek Conway case will be one of the reasons":

"The polite phrase used by the Standards and Privileges Committee was ‘diversion of public funds’. At a stroke, this gave Gordon Brown the words he needed for a narrative he has been trying to construct — to portray the controversies about Labour donations, which led to Mr Hain’s resignation, as a problem afflicting all parties. Meanwhile, the public simply conclude that all politicians are villains — and not just those with a red rosette."

Just to end on a counterdig...interesting point made on The Huntsman yesterday, 'The Porkers Gazette': "Cameron can steal a march here and respond swiftly to the public mood which is clearly and unambiguously in favour of complete openness on this topic. Labour will then be seen to be playing catch-up."

Objurgation of overspending...

Update Sunday February 3rd: The race for transparency begins: Ben Wallace, a Conservative Party MP, "has broken ranks" with the seemingly all-party 'let's hope it goes away and people will forget how much we claim': he is the first UK Member of Parliament to publish a complete breakdown of his annual Commons expenses. [Times]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this week's The Spectator Fraiser Nelson expounds on the nepotist shenanigans in the UK of ex-Conservative Party MP Derek Conway. Despite the news rumbling on all week, compared to other such circuses, the headlines and reaction could almost be described as a defeaning silence. Nobody is screaming; all parties speak in hushed tones of a need to perhaps introduce a ban on family members being employed by MP's. What it has also done is pretty much let New Labour and Gordon Brown 'off the hook'...they're not cleared by any means but they have been gifted the spiking a few opposition guns; as Nelson puts it:

"But the damage is nonetheless done. The word ‘Conway’ will now silence any Conservative seeking to chide Labour for financial impropriety. Mr Brown may well be struggling against the weight of five financial scandals (two now the subject of criminal investigations). But he can now say, as Jack Straw did on Wednesday morning, that all parties have trouble with finance. To the immense frustration of the shadow cabinet, they are in no position to argue."

To put it another way for an ex-tory boy like me: it's so bloody frustrating! That said I believe there should be a major cutting and capping of expenses: they've risen by over 50% in only 5 or 6 years (!!!) and of all MP's only 3 ...yes, THREE...have expenses below £90,000 (the average is almost £136 thousand!). Labour's Shahid Malik was highest at £185,421 and Conservative Philip Hollobone claimed the least - £44,551. Now....looking at that last figure, it's 75% of an MP's salary - surely that is enough? The second lowest is more than twenty thousand above Mr. Hollobone. Maybe you'd think he doesn't do a lot; you'd be wrong, he is well above average both in action/committees/voting etc. [They work for you] Check your MP's expenses claim HERE (opens Excel spreadsheet)

Back to Nelson Fraiser, "If Gordon wins next time, the Derek Conway case will be one of the reasons":

"The polite phrase used by the Standards and Privileges Committee was ‘diversion of public funds’. At a stroke, this gave Gordon Brown the words he needed for a narrative he has been trying to construct — to portray the controversies about Labour donations, which led to Mr Hain’s resignation, as a problem afflicting all parties. Meanwhile, the public simply conclude that all politicians are villains — and not just those with a red rosette."

Just to end on a counterdig...interesting point made on The Huntsman yesterday, 'The Porkers Gazette': "Cameron can steal a march here and respond swiftly to the public mood which is clearly and unambiguously in favour of complete openness on this topic. Labour will then be seen to be playing catch-up."