midelifeangst

[midelifeangst]

Dear Prime Minister

                                                                                  25 November 2018

Dear Prime Minister

I read your open letter with interest and increasing alarm.  The lies and deceit contained in it show complete contempt for the Citizens of the United Kingdom.

Before I illuminate on this treachery I was confused why you wrote the letter in the first place given you have decided that we are not going to be asked to give informed consent on your deal which bears no resemblance to the utopian cake filled future that the Leave campaigns presented in that fatally flawed agenda.

So to the reasons I find your letter alarming:

1.    Prime Ministerial duty to protect democracy You talk about a duty to honour the result of the referendum.  Your first duty as Prime Minister is to protect our security and within that our democracy.  The referendum has been shown to have been rife with illegalities, with fines levied by the Electoral Committee and the ICO.  Individuals have been referred to the Met and the NCA.  Parliaments own DCMS Committee has highlighted the impact of Fake News and Russian interference in Campaigns.  News Journalist have exposed illicit use of data, likely US money behind the lobby groups of Tufton St some of which were inextricably aligned with the Leave campaign.  Even Trump hasn’t been able to stop the Mueller Enquiry, but you have refused all requests for a similar enquiry, refused to confirm or deny whether as Home Secretary you stopped an enquiry into Arron Banks.  

This all tells me that you are failing in your prime duty to protect our security and our democracy. The Leave win was marginal, it would only take a few people to have had their minds swayed by targeted add campaigns paid for by illegal funds, by Russian social media interactions, by the threat of unfounded Turkish immigration, by the £350m lie! 2.    A deal not in the National Interest You use the phrase National Interest glibly, rather like the ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and ‘citizens of nowhere’ nonsense. The National Interest means making decisions in the interests of all your constituents and to make every decision on merit.  For the last two years you have been trying to hold your Party together and retain power in your own interests.  You wasted time calling an election to get a clear mandate, you failed.  You then sold your soul to the DUP with a £1bn bribe giving them significant more power in the affairs of the whole of the UK than is merited.  

Not once have you been honest with the public regarding the economic impacts of Brexit.   You triggered Article 50 unilaterally without having a plan or coherent vision for the future Post Brexit UK.  You have spent the next 18 months arguing within cabinet, within your party, ignoring the 49m citizens who didn’t vote to leave. Outside Downing Street on your first day as PM you talked about fighting burning injustices, yet since you have steam-rollered on with the hostile environment and the appalling hardships caused by Universal Credit.  Last week your new DWP secretary dismissed the UN Rapporteur’s findings on the alarming poverty.  None of your actions on these are in the National Interests.  You have traduced the office by the huge chasm between your words and actions on Brexit and everything else.

Now you are running down the clock on Brexit by pursuing a blindfold deal which the large majority of all parties, including your friends in the DUP, will vote down.  This raises the risk of No Deal which will be disastrous.

Why did you refuse to answer Michael on Radio 5 on Friday when he asked you whether we would be better off under his deal? Why do you refuse to be honest, Prime Minister?

3.    Putting an end to OUR Free Movement I am particularly offended by your glee in ending FOM.  It is an appallingly insular policy presented as being what people voted for.  Not once have you made it clear that under reciprocity you will be taking the way the rights of 66m citizens of this Island. 17m responsible for take the rights away from 66m and all future generations.  Ironic round of applause.  Your words on this have been little short of a dog whistle to the xenophobes who you want to support your party.  These people should have been faced down. I don’t understand how, as a Christian, you take such pride in your hostile environment and also in taking away the rights of UK citizens.  

Why have you not told the British public that as Home Secretary you could have imposed the 3 month rule that countries like Belgium do, but didn’t?  Why the dishonesty, Prime Minister.

Why could this have not been implemented post referendum as an indication of the of your intent to better control migration?

4.    Conflating ending ‘vast’ annual payments to EU with NHS funding, the lie of the Brexit dividend. This is just a flat out deception.  The money you have given to NHS is nothing to do with Brexit.  I think the ‘spendometer’ on Brexit is running at a cost of £4.2bn.  Every forecast outcome is that the economy will suffer, I believe the economy is already some £500m per week worse off.  So why the lie, Prime Minister?  The netcontribution to the EU at the time of the £350m bus lie, was approximately £160m a relatively modest sum when compared to the defence spending and the NHS spending which alone was £2.19m per week. Conflating the EU spend with the NHS extra money is just wrong, you know it, you’re not stupid, but you expect us to swallow it.  No, Prime Minister. 5.    Treatment of the 5 Million Where do I start.  Appalling.  Have you apologised yet for Mr Cameron’s gross error in disenfranchising 5m people directly affected by the outcome? Have you apologised for calling EU Citizens legally and perfectly entitled to be in this country queue jumpers?  Have you apologised to people like my Sister perfectly entitled as UK citizens to live in Continental Europe by inferring they must be queue jumpers too? Reciprocity!  Why have you and your representatives refused to meet with people directly affected?

You have consistently said that these peoples rights will not change, but everyday there are stories of EU citizens with British husbands and children being refused status.  Probably because the Comprehensive Sickness requirement was imposed with no communication.

The MAC report should a healthy net contribution per capita from EU citizens in the UK, you have never admitted this or advocated for the continuation of FOM. Instead you have taken pride in your xenophobic hostile environment. 6.    Losing many skilled jobs Not much to say here, companies are already leaving and cutting job’s here, I could list them, but you should have a comprehensive list.  

As for a deal that works for the whole country and all of our people.  That is just not borne out by every single impact assessment.  Under Norway EEA 700,000 jobs were forecast to go, your deal is worse than Norway EEA. Because of your hostility, EU citizens who work in our health service are leaving in droves.  How does this tie in?  Given that agriculture and care to name but two sectors rely on a lot of low salaried workers many from the EU what will happen to those sectors, where will the staff come from?  If you make special cases what does that do to your precious immigration system. We haven’t got a free trade agreement have we, Prime Minister? We have at best a road map for the future relationship at worst a wish list.

7.    A deal that does not deliver for every part of the country Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain, polls say Wales and even England support remain.  The result of the referendum was born out of particularly English Exceptionalism spouted by some of your political colleagues.  I am English, I am also British and European.  Having moved to Scotland I find your dismissal  and disengagement with Scotland (and Wales) cynical in the extreme, I think you have signalled the end of the Union by your policy of appeasing your own Party at the expense of the National Interest. It is distinctly possible that the ecomonic damage done to NI with Brexit will lead to a referendum for a united Ireland, that will lead to Indy 2 for Scotland and so the nations fall.  

Spain are already sizing up the opportunity for co-sovereignty over Gibraltar.

You will leave some legacy, Prime Minister.

8.    Where are the new trade deals You talk airly about new trade deals, new markets in the fastest growing economies.  It might have escaped you notice but we were 25thout of 28 EU countries in forecast growth for 2018.  EU and affiliated trade deals cover 60% of all our trade, we need to replace some 78 deals to get to a status quo.  We don’t have the negotiation bandwidth to operate at this level.  

The fact that the future relationship is blindfold it is a leap into the dark.  We know the ERG and their shady lobby group sponsors want this great country to be low regulation, low tax, a sort of Singapore on steroids or the 51st state of USA.  They would privatise the NHS and ensure that any economic future would benefit the few not the many.  You should have faced them down.  

We already have a great trade deal with the EU and great trade deal through the EU were collective bargaining strength has given advantages that would be difficult to achieve as UK alone, or England alone (see point above).

9.    Impact of Brexit weakens the economy I look forward to the treasury assessment comparing to the current state.  You, the Chancellor have confirmed by your refusal to answer direct questions (not your strong point if I might be so bold) regarding the economic impact of Brexit, inferring that the impact will be damaging.  That is not surprising given that assessments from all corners indicate it will damage us.  No deal will be catastrophic leading to 8.8% wiped off GDP, that makes your deal sound positively utopian until you compare it to where we are now.  Remaining in the EU is the most economically beneficial yet our own Prime Minister refuses to point is in that direction which is a gross dereliction of duty.  National Interest or Party Interest, Prime Minister.

10.  Brexit is Not settled Naughty, naughty, Prime Minister, that is deceitful again.  March 29thmarks the  start of the transition period, transition to who knows where?  None of us know.

You have agreed a withdrawal agreement that barely anybody supports and we have a statement of intent as a prelude for two more years of internecine warfare within the Conservative Party arguing over trade deals, trying to change things agreed, whilst the rest of us will look on in horror.   Finally, you talk about renewal and reconciliation.  Look at yourself in the mirror, are you really the right person to take us forward as a Nation.  You were a divisive Home Secretary implementing the abhorrent Hostile Environment leading to the appalling treatment of the Windrush citizens and their descendants, a policy all EU citizens living here fear will be repeated.  You have spent two and half years saying one thing, doing another, your government persist with the appalling roll out of Universal Credit without paying heed to the damages to individuals, you yourself insult EU citizens living here.  You have succeeded on one thing the large majority of the country are united against your deal. Campaigning with your heart and soul for a deal that will damage the country is just wrong.

We need a leader with Statescraft, who will be honest with the population, who will have a moral compass that treats people equally.  

A person with these qualities would have been honest about the lack of integrity behind the original mandate, an enquiry would be some 12 months in.  Such a person would be honest about the impacts of Brexit at an individual level, would see people not party.  Such a person would make the positive case for the EU, security, research and development, grants, economic certainty etc and made the explain how membership could be used to help deal with the burning injustices in society.  

Such a person would explain how the costs and economic savings from not leaving would be used to improve the NHS, giving children the right star, building homes and building a country for the future.   Such a person would act in a way that was consistent with their words.

Are you that person, Prime Minister?  Can you let your people judge your deal against the prospect of remaining in the EU?  Can you withdraw Article 50?

Regards,

[midelifeangst]

Things I’d Like to Get Off My Chest (Part 1)

Today I feel the need to get a few things off my chest about the state of this country.

We have never been more divided, ill served by our political leaders abetted by the media.  From the moment the EU referendum was announced something dark and unsavoury about this country was given permission to rise out into the open and flourish.  I would like to address some of the contributory factors that have enabled this malevolence to flourish.

1.     Standard of Politics & Campaigning

The referendum campaign took place to some degree in parallel to the American Party presidential nomination process.  Both campaigns were characterised by lies, half-truths, hollow tub-thumping and fear. No side of any campaign was exempt.

The Remain campaign chose to not make the case for EU membership, but to just highlight the potential fear of stepping into the unknown of life outside the EU. Leave focussed on sound bites, clichés and mis-truths.  The media focus on personalities resulted in chasing after ‘characters’ most of whom were on the leave side, Messrs Farage and Johnson.  Johnson was door stepped as he ‘agonised’ over which side to support before coming down on the side of leave after which he morphed into a hard Brexit campaigner.  Hardly the action of a man who was torn.

Where was the basic analysis – Costs/Benefits/Opportunities/Threats of retaining membership or leaving different aspects of the European Union? In this world of easy consumption and dissemination on social media there was no depth of analysis 140 words was the limit. Since the referendum result the behaviour of politicians has sunk to further lows with both main parties riven by internal disputes and wrangling.  Name calling has no place in politics.

Politicians seem unable to comprehend their role when the issue does not fall into the conventional right versus left paradigm.

Post referendum when it has become increasingly clear that the binary question asked in the referendum was not fit for purpose there has still been no overt analysis of costs, benefits of different options.  It has all been shallow dog whistle politics shouting down opponents rather than illuminating the issues with cogent analysis.  What impact analysis has been undertaken - and yes it should have been available before the referendum, after all proper planning prevents piss poor performance is one of the basic maxims of management, Mr Cameron – has been largely hidden.  Experts and business analyses have been similarly left on one side by media and politicians alike. Mr Cameron’s legacy is catastrophic, a divided country, a Prime Minister who can’t engage and who won’t answer a direct question and a direction for leaving the EU muddled by the complete absence of any contingency planning that should have happened under his watch.  Mrs May may yet out do him in terms of appalling legacy after all she appointed a Foreign Secretary who says what he thinks unchecked, who undermines her at every turn, but who is unsackable.  She is responsible for a fundamentally racist immigration policy from her time at the Home Office yet chose to use Amber Rudd as a human shield.  Will she also be remembered as the PM who broke up the Union with her disdain for devolved government and her failure to grasp hold of the right wing of her party with regard to the NI border?  The future will tell.

2.     Lying Trump has legitimised the practice of lying, the Brexit referendum was full of threats and half truths, but the one that sticks in the craw most was the £350m for NHS.  Now aside from the fact that our net contributions are nowhere near £350m the legitimisation of this proposed dividend was shown to be nonsense.

What happens on Sunday this week and the Prime Minister, no less trots it out when unveiling plans for increased funding of the NHS also mentioning as an aside some contribution by ourselves.  

Now the Prime Minister purports to be a woman of Christian values where does this shameful lying come into those values.  Suggests are that she might be trying to appease the Brexiteers for some softening of Brexit negotiations i.e. she is playing politics or some other nefarious games are being played.  Does that make it acceptable - NO.  

The public deserve honesty. In American Trump lies and accuses anyone who calls him out as peddling ‘fake news’.  It seems like too many of our politicians have seen that immorality wins and are prepared to sacrifice their integrity in the interests of power. 3.     Do as I say not as I do

Not to mince words the practice of whipping MPs to vote in certain ways is abhorrent, demeaning and undermines the integrity of individual members.  To see the Conservative Chief Whip hustling in the chamber making offers and doing deals to get votes is pathetic and shameful. It leads to individuals putting their careers before their beliefs and their party before the country.

Whipping should not be allowed full stop, but on an issue that so fundamentally splits both major parties down the middle  that there is no coherent party line it is frankly ridiculous.

The additional complexity that means use of the whip is spectacularly inappropriate in the case of Brexit is that MPs may represent constituencies that voted remain.

Bizarrely we have ended up with the far left of the Labour party supporting the extreme Brexiteers on the right of the Conservatives as if they were smitten offspring of rival Mafia families conducting an illicit tryst behind the bike sheds. It almost seems worse somehow to whip your MPs to abstain, to not take a view one way or the other on some of the critical aspects of major decisions affecting the country. It is contemptuously hypocritical of Corbyn to use the whip so extensively when he himself a habitually ignored it when he voted.

There are exceptions where MPs have stood their ground. Not enough.

It is a system that is broken.

[midelifeangst]

Ehab & the Art of Listening

Effective listening is one of the most important skills a leader can have.  I was taught that on every management course I have attended over the years. It is important to listen to your staff who may have better ideas than you on how to improve the business.  It is vital to listen to your customers, if you don’t deliver what they want they will desert you.

Ehab Allam has the temerity to chastise the Hull City fans as a block with his comments:

“If you thought people wanted to listen, you may look to engage. Some people listen to understand but others listen just to respond or react, meaning anything said is then falling on deaf ears. I don’t see any point in trying to engage with people who I don’t really think want to listen or understand.”

This is hypocrisy of the highest order. We welcomed the Allams as they rescued the club, our club – we treat it as our club because supporting your team is not like choosing a supermarket to shop at, I will get fed up of Sainsburys and move to Tesco, I may get fed up with Hull City, but I can never give them up for another team, it will never happen.  This undying loyalty sets you at odds with the people who run your club whenever a decision is made that you disagree with, but also leads to great support when they approve.  

Until the name change the Allams were lauded for saving the club, how quickly that changed.

The Allams admitted they weren’t football people and yet they have never seriously tried to engage with the fan base who, by definition, most definitely are football people.

The root cause in my mind goes back to their failure to engage with the City Council properly over the stadium and land.  Not getting it cheap was I believe the main reason with Dr Allam trying to push through the name change to distance himself from Hull City Council which shared two words with Hull City AFC.  Now this was at first divisive within the supporter base which split broadly into 3 camps:

Camp 1 the OKs– I am fine with it, it’s their money and we probably wouldn’t exist without them and the team has never been better.  My father who had followed them for 76 years was broadly in this camp at the start.

Camp 2 the Noes– This is appalling they are trampling over our heritage and tradition. My son who despite being born and raised in Hampshire had been indoctrinated from the age of 6 and had followed them for the next 20 years fell into this camp.

Camp 3 the Maybes– Not sure it was the worst thing that could happen and could broadly see both sides of the argument, but wanted to be convinced by the business case.  Initially I probably fell here.

This pitted fans against each other and rather than seek to engage Dr Allam chose to pour oil on troubled waters by firstly suggesting that fans could die if they wanted, potentially in an ill-judged attempt at humour with reference to the anthem City til’ I die which had been sung long before the name change, but which had been adopted as an anthem. Secondly, the bizarre slanted fans referendum which linked the ownership to the name change. This had me drifting towards camp 2, I suspect I wasn’t alone.  The refusal to accept the regulators decision on the rename and insidious rebranding of all media and announcements to remove the word City from everything moved me into Camp 2.  I wrote to Dr Allam explaining the divisive nature of the proposal and the effect it had on my family and our enjoyment of games.  I got a polite thank you, nothing else.

At all times there have been supporter groups prepared to engage with the owners, the Supporters Trust doing a particularly fine job of crystallising the thoughts of what I believe is an increasing majority.

Things were bad, but have subsequently gone downhill since Ehab took over the reins particularly with the ill thought out membership scheme.  Not necessarily a bad idea in principal, but the bizarre removal of concessions and the forced relocation of fans was totally beyond ill conceived.  My Father, had he been alive would have been enraged at being told he could ‘earn his stripes’ having first attended games in 1936!

I talk to other fans, not generally very radical in their thinking, but all agree that the owners have created a rift with fans that they can’t recover from.

I was prepared to listen, I always was and still am, but Ehab doesn’t engage. It appears that he doesn’t engage with his players (staff to him) either, sending contract offers and extensions via email.

This attitude to staff and customers is no way for a leader to operate.

Communication by statement is not engagement. His latest explanation that the fans are now apparently at fault and the reason behind his failure to sell suggests little by way of self-criticism.  He did say WE are not presenting the club in the best light, which might suggest that there is a slight chink of self-awareness – or am I clutching at straws. 

Bear in mind Allam senior avowed to give the club away.  There have been well documented reasons why the first two offers to buy apparently fell through neither of which can be laid at the door of the supporters.

If I thought Ehab would listen I would give him this advice:

a)    Admit the name change is dead in the water and unravel the re-branding;

b)   Apologise for the removal of concessions and reinstate them with immediate effect;

c)    Appoint a senior person at the club with sole responsibility for fan engagement.

d)   Make it clear that the fans are not to blame for the failure to sell the club and confirm that it is still the intention to sell.

I suspect if Ehab ever got to read this it would fall on deaf ears, but if he aspires to be a proper leader it is never too late to learn!

[midelifeangst]

The Flawed Philanthropist

A Manager walking out of a football club three weeks before the season with a decimated playing squad would normally be met with opprobrium by the club’s supporters.  Steve Bruce did that yesterday and was met with almost universal support and sympathy from the team followers.

Respected BBC journalist Pat Murphy commented that he had hit the buffers, Tim Thornton of Skysports News advised that Hull City was a well run club and would have a plan in place.  Did they stop to wonder about the real causes?  National press coverage was focusing on the moment, failure to get support in the transfer market without going back into the lead up to this back breaking straw.  Local media have occasionally alluded to fans disaffection, but have rarely drilled into the reasons or analysed some of the club’s policies.

This week alone for example we have seen the following;

a) Under the new membership touted by vice chairman Ehab Allam we have seen the decision to move fans from the Upper West Stand to accommodate away supporters condemned by the Safety Advisory Group; b) Next day we have evidence from the attendance at the Premier League fans group saying the Club didn’t believe the rules on concessionary prices applied to them; c) Steve Bruce leaves by ‘mutual consent’

Maybe not a normal week in Hull City’s life, but an accelerated microcosm of what it has been like to be a supporter since the Allams bought the club in November 2010.  

The nearest I have got to Assem Allam was standing behind him in the queue at a Fish & Chip shop as he picked up the family tea.  It was at the time of the name change and I wanted to talk to him about the effect it was having on three generations of my family, but he was having a pleasant conversation with somebody and it would be impolite to interrupt.  He seemed avuncular and chatty, constantly smiling.

There is no doubt he has a philanthropic nature as evidence by his gifts, to charities, education and sports club.  His takeover of Hull City saved us from administration and was a ‘gift to the community’.  He confessed that they were not football people and during their tenure they have never got to grips with understanding the community within a community that a football clubs supporters form.  We are all experts, we all could pick better sides than the manager, we wallow in the despair when our team is failing, but for few of us choosing a football club to follow is not a choice it is in our blood, much more than it is for a manager, most players and nowadays most owners.

I went to my first game as a six year old in the 1960’s, my father had started at a similar age in 1936, my son was introduced at the same age in the 1990’s.  My son was born and raised in Hampshire, but he wore his replica shirt with pride when all his school friends were sporting Man Utd, Arsenal and Barcelona shirts.   The commitment had been passed on.

My Father saw the Allams as saviours, rightly so we were on a steep downward slope after the excesses of the Duffen – Bartlett – Brown years.

Dr Allam gave periodic press conferences and provided excellent soundbites, football should be free as the air, we should see games for £10, £5, we can increase the capacity of the stadium.

He talked about leaving the club as a legacy to the people of Hull who took him in in the 1960’s.

Not everything has been bad

The support and warmth shown to Steve Bruce through his tenure and yesterday as he left shows that not everything the owners have done is bad.  Hell, they saved us from administration, they appointed the most successful manager in the clubs history and they have ensured major development in the clubs academy so we could develop home grown players.

They supported the manager to the extent that we were able to acquire a group of players that we would have dreamed off in the past.  Players that took us back to the premiership, to the FA Cup final and to Europe.  The dreamland for most football fans.

Why, now then do so many fans on social media say now they would be much happier outside the premiership with different owners?  The good people of Sky and BBC can’t seem to understand this because they are conditioned to sound bites, easily understood and believe that success is everything.

It is not everything, what point is success if you can’t enjoy it and many Hull City fans have ceased to enjoy the success.  Yes we still enjoy the wins, the triumphs, but they have come at a cost and a cost many are not prepared to suffer.  Not necessarily a SkySports ££££ cost, but a much more difficult to quantify cost revolving around belonging, feeling of togetherness and that our club is no longer our club it has lost it’s soul.

What has gone wrong?

a)  No one tells me how to run my business

It was all serene to start with as Nigel Pearson carried on consolidating City’s position in the Championship until he was lured back to ‘complete some unfinished business’ with Leicester City.  No one doubted the owners judgement, when appointing a favourite son Nicky Barmby as his successor. To perhaps explain this appointment one could perhaps look at the fact that in a shrewd move the Allams had continued to utilize the skills of Adam Pearson.

I said it was serene, well sort of, there was a debate with the council about whether Mr Allam could acquire the freehold of the stadium.  In an early indication of things to come too much of this debate descended into the he said she said apt of a school playground as it was played out in the press.  I knew little of the Allams before they took over, but already there was an image of intransigence and petty-mindedness to set alongside the avuncular philanthropy.

May 2012 sent up some warning flares when Nicky Barmby appeared to be sacked for speaking out of turn and Adam Pearson also left the club again.  No one could have predicted then that the owners would have the wisdom to appoint Steve Bruce, a man I admit I associated with premiership struggles and frequent club switches.  Neither would we have predicted also that the next season would result in our first automatic promotion to the Premier League and remarkably with a top scorer of 9 goals.  Talk about pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

The 2013 -14 season was the real start of the rollercoaster with positive events on the field counter-posed with the insidious attempts to change of Hull City’s identity to Hull Tigers, starting with the company registered name and use of Hull Tigers in club social media. This led eventually to a full blown application to change with no consultation with the customers or as we like to call ourselves fans.  The reason for the request for a name change was purported to be to improve marketing opportunities, but at heart was a desire to distance the club from the Hull City Council. Google Hull City and you get pages on Hull City AFC intermingled with Hull City Council. Dr Allam had the hump with the Council, never a man to compromise or hold out an olive branch that relationship was over.

The name change set fans against fans. In my own family my father said why not, my son said never and I was caught in the middle.  No consultation led to the City Till I Die Campaign.  I was open minded, but started to resent the way things were being done, I don’t see football fans as customers in the common business sense.  I will readily change the supermarkets at which I shop, but I could no more change the Football Team I support than I could cut my own arm off.  

They lost, ‘nobody tells me how to run my business’ said the Chairman, they appealed, they lost.  Since which all communications from the club have been cleansed of the Hull City name, despite the rejection we get missives from Hull Tigers, poor losers? Men of intransigence?

The whole debate has soured relationships with increasing invective on social media, but when it was rejected no acceptance from the owners.  New membership cards have been dropping through the door this weekend with no mention of Hull City anywhere.  When eventually a statement did come out about Steve Bruce leaving by ‘mutual consent’ it mentioned only The Tigers. Yes a nickname to be proud of but not the name of the football team. City status is something to be proud of and particularly with next years City of Culture status should be something to be embraced.  Not by our owners.

b) Poor Public Relations

In the heat of the debate, the Chairman suggested, maybe in an effort at humour, that those that protested against the name change could indeed, die when they wanted, alluding to the anti name change anthem.

Later on the vice chairman, perhaps with some logic regarding how money flows into the game from different sources branded the fans as irrelevant.

These might have been brushed off if they didn’t seem to follow these statements with utter disregard for any fan engagement, dismissing any opinion than their own.

c) The gift to the Community that keeps on taking

Despite being a season ticket holder I do not live locally so am not best equipped to evidence the issues with the Airco Arena which is part of the stadium complex and was used by community groups and the club for training.

It was curious to observe the quick and random eviction of community groups to serve the parochial needs of the football club.

The club was rescued and the Allams have indeed pumped money in, much of it as loans from Allamhouse at rates of 4%, none of my money owns that sort of return.

d) Members not Supporters

There were signs that in implementation of the Membership Scheme for 2016/17 the owners had found a way to re-unite some of the fans driven apart by the name change. Unfortunately, the scheme is so ill conceived as to unite the fans against the club.

Key features of the scheme:

- my own ‘pass’ would be cheaper, but that is at the expense of others; - unless you were in a family zone juniors pay same as adults; - similarly if you are and OAP you pay same as those of working age; - fans who had sat in the Upper West all the years City had been at the KCOM would be moved to accommodate Away fans; (it should be noted that without discussion fans had previously been moved from the East Stand to accommodate away fans);

This is a flawed and dirty scheme unbecoming of a community club, yet no one in the media has taken them to task.

They have already made it harder for disabled fans with carers, made it harder to buy tickets by removing the ticket office, cash only turnstiles and the like.

It ironic that the movement of away fans is justified on the grounds that there was a desire to improve the atmosphere.  The most unified the fans have been in recent times has been the red card protest against the owners. I mentioned earlier the move to the Upper West has been deemed dangerous by the Safety Advisory Group, this is not on a whim but with a mathematical justification, it is too steep.  Why was this not discussed before moving people?  Consultation is anathema to the Allams, every incidence I recount her contributes to a picture of people of unyielding arrogance.  

Ehab comes across s presentable when interviewed despite the odd irrelevant turn of phrase, but he seems more arrogant than his father. After all as his Father said no one tells them how to run their business.

The absence of concessions appears to be against the Premier League rules and we now have Leicester publishing prices with concessions albeit relatively poor ones 20% but none to season pass holders.

A group of fans have stayed away since the name change farrago, my son included.  Many more are staying away because of the membership scheme and many are cancelling memberships following the departure of Steve Bruce.  Outside the bubble of Hull City this is probably incomprehensible to others after we have been promoted to the promised land for the 3rd time in recent years but only after over 100 years of toiling in the lower leagues.

I make a 450 mile round trips to watch home games.  Last year we won most home games, but particularly after the Membership was revealed it wasn’t enjoyable because the atmosphere is increasingly toxic.  The owners did not attend home games last year, which perhaps saved it from being even worse, but maybe the message might have got across earlier.

I vowed that I would not let them stop supporting my club, but I don’t enjoy it and I feel I am letting fellow fans down by going and in doing so giving some form of tacit support to the regime.  Regime is an appropriate word, it seems that Assem Allam fled Egypt because of the regime, yet he and his son display unfortunate dictatorial tendencies.

e) I am a man of my word

I will give the club away, walk away within 24 hours.  So said the owner in the lead up to the name change appeal.

He lost the appeal, we will find a good home he said.  This was nearly two years ago.  

In that time the Chairman handed over much of the running to his son, Ehab.

The club doesn’t readily communicate with fans about the sale and we would all respect that there are confidentiality agreements in place, but the lack of any real dialogue at all leads to great suspicion that they are serious.

From what I can tell, there was a serious American consortium up until last week.  Ehab had been negotiating whilst his father was ill.  When he was recovering he started to get involved.  From my perspective this seemed like a good thing as we appeared to be in a state of stasis.

However, it seems that the goal posts kept moving and the Americans got fed up and walked away, although the clubs take on events was that talks had been suspended to provide stability and to help build the squad for the new season.  Two days later the Manager walks because nothing is happening.  5 members of last seasons squad were released or went back to their parent clubs.  Pre-season has brought 4 long term injuries, we are down to the bare bones and we can’t even get free agents over the line.

So what happens now?

Firstly, Steve Bruce brought nearly all, if not all the players in, they are upset, the vultures will be gathering there may be a fire sale and we go into the season with a youth team.  The season would appear to be over before it has started.

Secondly, it will be very difficult to get a new manager in who has the respect of the fans, because the assumption is that the Allams will place the same restraints as on Steve Bruce.  Anyone, prepared to work under those conditions will be seen as mercenary.

The title of this piece is the Flawed Philanthropist and is my own description of Assem Allam.  The flaws should be self evident, arrogance, lack of self awareness, complete disregard for the regulators (FA and Premier League) and a failure to consult, listen and learn.

The odd thing is that they have probably torpedoed the value of the club in the short term.  Given that, the best that could happen is that, the owners in a moment of unexpected self enlightenment realise how loathed they are; that their legacy is tarnished beyond repair unless, unless, and this is a long shot, they pick up the phone to Peter Grieve offer an olive branch and sell the club promptly so that we can all move forward as a club and a community.  I live in hope but very low expectation.

Hull City Football Club, my club, my father’s club, my son’s club, the fans club, the Community’s club, needs to rediscover it’s heart and soul, I don’t believe the current owners and custodians understand that so they need to handover the custody to someone who will respect it.

[midelifeangst]

Just a bloke on Brexit vote

I usually go on about my football teams owners or England cricket, they seem trivial at the moment. It is all very depressing, by 10 o’clock on Friday my wife was texting me suggesting we move to Scotland. We are middle aged and our children have left home so we have been wondering where to downsize to in our later years. We live in Hampshire within commutable distance to London, Scotland has never come up before even flippantly, lovely though it is.

We vote remain, why? I guess with everybody there were different reasons.

• I like everybody am concerned about the rapid growth in population and the pressure that that imposes on our services.

• I don’t particularly buy the argument that we are safer in the EU from extremists, because firstly I believe there would be relatively minor changes to the way countries share intelligence and secondly because terrorists are frequently home grown or radicalized through the global network.

• I did have sympathy for the argument of economic suffering, but as an accountant if I have learned one thing over the years it is that forecasts are always wrong. The immediate aftermath of the vote has been volatility but what does the medium or longer term hold?

From this you can see that I didn’t side with too many of the Pro Remain arguments. What about the leave arguments?

Firstly, I realized very early on they were lying. The £350m battle bus pledge was built on fantasy. Charlie Stayt did a very good analysis on BBC Breakfast that I didn’t see repeated often enough. £350m was gross, after rebates and regional grants it was £160m net, an important differentiation and one easy to explain, but his analyis went on further to compare this with the £853m spent on Defence and £2.6 billion, yes £2.6 billion spent on the NHS. In total £14bn is spent by the government each week so £160m is not much more than 1%. Finally, the leavers spouting this were unlikely to be in a position to re-direct it to the NHS any time soon. This doesn’t mean that I think the EU membership represents value for money, it is clearly overly bureaucratic and we spend money sending MEP who don’t seem to do very much.

Secondly, I think immigration is generally a good thing many public services are reliant on immigrants, there a migrants from Britain living and working all over the world. The refugees heading across the Mediterranean at the moment are a huge issue, but they are a global not a British issue. There needs to be a compassionate shared response not a self interested defensive response.

Thirdly, sovereignty. A strong argument perhaps if presented properly with a clear demonstrable list of laws made by Westminster against those made by the EU. Personally, I didn’t see anyone explain which EU laws they were most upset about except our inability to deport certain people, neither did I see the remain campaign make a coherent case for the good that the EU had brought in, there was some wishy washy stuff from Corbyn about workers rights protection, but not much else. What strikes me as strange about this sovereignty argument and the end referendum is that the sort of regions that voted out are those that also most ostensibly mistrust the elitist Westminster political classes. So in ‘taking back sovereignty’ over whatever rules that the EU make we are then trusting them to people we don’t trust! A bit of a conundrum.

Finally, the characters that supported Brexit. Nigel Farage and his passport, I can understand how he appeals to people, he can come across as a slightly overbearing saloon bar philosopher, but he has ended up the poster boy for a fair degree of xenophobia.

Michael Gove a man who seemingly represents the I know best non listening side of politics, he did not listen when he was Education Minister and he poo-pooed the opinions of experts in the referendum. Now I admitted earlier that all forecasts are wrong, but there was a fairly consensus opinion from the experts on the economy that there would be considerable pain for several years. Now at the final big debate Boris Johnson was asked what the leavers plan was and answer was there none.

This rather typified the standard of debate that I heard during the referendum. Broadly speaking it seemed to consist of the remain party saying bad things would happen and the leave campaign saying they were wrong. It was like me arguing with my kids when they were young teenagers.

I mentioned Boris Johnson without really explaining why he was a factor in why I would never support the leave campaign. This is a man who demonstrates such naked self interest that I cannot associate with, he is a talker not a listener, a man previously sacked from his job for lying. A man with a career plan, but no plan for what happens now.

In voting for remain, I was not surprised by the end result, I saw people on television in vox pop interviews. Many had different reasons, it was a protest vote against the government, it was because the immigrants were taking our jobs, it’s because we want the country to go back to the way it was, what has the EU ever done for me. In this atmosphere we sleep walked our way into this, we ended up with areas that were traditionally labour voters strongly aligning them selves with the far right of the conservative right wing – very, very odd, but the signs were there in May 2015 by looking at the UKIP performance in similar parts of the country.

The old voted in droves, the majority out, the young in much fewer numbers voted to stay. David Starkey, why do the BBC give this man so much airtime, blames this on them being apathetic and lazy, he doesn’t accept that there is a responsibility that politicians should carry to find ways to engage to all sectors of society, young and old, working class and middle class. It is fairly typical of the ruling classes to deal with a crisis by turning on each other rather than working together to sort the problem. Whilst people say turnout was high there were still 13m voters who didn’t exercise their franchise.

I also feel the media has to be held accountable. The elements of the press owned by wealthy individuals as a Leveson sized grudge to bear with the Cameron government. They are past masters in appealing to peoples base instincts as they did throughout the referendum.

So we are now in a Disunited Kingdom with splits between countries, regions, young and old, neighbours and families a proper pickle. I think the most serious indictment of the whole thing is that the politicians are so distant from this that they didn’t see it coming, the European parliament seems to have been asleep on the job as well. The political far right in Europe appear to be taking advantage of this vote resulting from a weird alliance between the conservative right, the working class industrial areas and the grey vote nostalgic for some vision of Britain of the past.

Were is the ambition, optimism for a forward looking vision of a the world, certainly there was little evidence of any positive campaigning.

I am ashamed to say until ten days ago I had never heard of Jo Cox, but I was touched, surprised and heartened by the cross party appreciation of someone who was determined, intelligent, compassionate, brave and energetic, all the qualities you would want in a politician. Yet this week what is our impression of the average politician – arrogant, self interested, deceitful and mendacious.

People are angry, dialogue is acrimonious and nobody seems to know where we go from hear, where is the leadership, nowhere to be seem. Boris giving his best impression of Nero saw fit to play cricket yesterday, George Osbourne has gone into hiding, Cameron is serving out his notice and Labour are busy are busy bemoaning their own lack of leadership.

Maybe the Queen needs to step in and knock a few heads together, the United Kingdom she presides over seems broken we need leadership more than ever.

[midelifeangst]

The (Un)holy mess that is Hull City

I have been trying to think how to describe what I feel about Hull City.  I love them they have been part of my life for nearly 50 years yet despite the last few years seeing the best of times they have also been the worst of times.

The atmosphere of fan against owner and fan against fan was terrible and made games unenjoyable. We now have fans more or less united but against the owners because of the distasteful aspects of the membership scheme.  Even those who benefit (including me) are appalled by the removal of concessions to young and old.  I would willingly contribute my savings to a concession fund to help these people who have long ago ‘earned’ there stripes or want to ‘earn’ their stripes.  Earn your stripes was an awful tag line, if anyone has to earn anything it is the football club who has to earn the support of the community.  

Some of the things the owners have done are good:

☑️ Save the club from administration

☑️ Appoint and support Steve Bruce ☑️ Fund the Academy improvements

But then there is the arguments with the council, the resulting petty name change and insidious use of Hull City Tigers on club communications, the Airco Arena fiasco, constant ticket rises culminating in this misconceived membership scheme. 

We know how owners don’t listen and consider themselves to be right so maybe their tenure could be summed up as follows: On the first day they saved us On the second day they argued with the council  On the third day they tried the change the name  On the fourth day they tried to change the name again   On the fifth day they evicted the community from the Arena  On the sixth day they removed concessions  On the seventh day they... sold up/went back on their promise to sell? Unfortunately I can guess which seventh day scenario will unfold. Commandments: 

Thou shalt save the club for the community and then set about alienating that community. Thou shalt say one thing and do another Thou shalt bad mouth the Cub’s fans (sorry customers) Thou shalt speak of cheap football and raise prices Thou shalt penalise the disabled, the young and the old Thou shalt show no humility Thou shalt entertain no compromise Thou shalt disavow the club name and tradition Thou shalt evict fans (sorry customers) from their seats Thou shalt speak only of that mythical beast the Hull City Tiger!

In the name of the Father, the Son its one holy mess

Here endeth the lesson.

[midelifeangst]

Hull City - Falling Short

Last night City lacked composure, had some ill fortune and were let down by an appalling referee who failed to see what was in front of them.  Clucas in the last two games could have scored six, should have scored three and didn’t score any an in a nutshell that is the difference between being clear at the top and not.

I am loathe to be too critical of Clucas because it is a long time since a City midfielder has got into too many goals coring positions, but he needs to be more clinical – maybe just put his boots through the ball rather than just dink it!

It was an odd decision to have Diomande on the bench ahead of Akpom when he has played so little football, but in all honesty I can’t recall Akpom changing a game when he has come on.  Those writing off Diomande are being extremely harsh, he has had very little football – another reason for maybe not bring him on – the 90 mins he had at Arsenal don’t really count as City hardly had the ball and his role was to chase down defenders which he did to the extent that he could hardly move at the end.  Hernandez and Diame have been scoring the few goals City have scored of late, but that masks the fact that they don’t work together very well.  In recent games they have invariably been trying to do it on their own and turning into 2 or 3 defenders.  Diame does this a lot in his own half giving away possession notably last night and in the home game against Brighton.  My take on last nights game was that Diomande and Hernandez linked up more in thirty minutes than Diame and Hernandez have in the last few weeks.  Diame apparently had a great game against Ipswich but he was dire against Brighton, poor against Wednesday and poor again last night.

It is staggering to me that in the three games where we have come up short in trying to break down packed defences – Brighton, Wednesday and Birmingham that Maloney who has a bit of guile, can worked in tightly packed areas has not had a minute.  He has come on and made a difference as a sub this season.  He would have been my first change last night – I would have taken off Diame at half time.  Diame is an enigma, Brucie seems a bit in thrall to me, but he is not delivering regularly enough for a player of his ability.  I think there is a danger that he will also be determined to play Powell come what may, it was marquee signings last season that upset the equilibrium.

 I also think having Clucas and Snodgrass as the two wide men unbalances us a bit.  They both favour their left foot, Clucas effort with his right last night was nothing short of lamentable, this means you can’t swap them over and change things because we will play the same way.  The left sided man will always favour going outside the right back, the right sided will always cut in. Maloney wide on the left would give us better balance and allow some flexibility.  If that means Clucas is left out so be it, Steve!

There is an opportunity to try something different against Arsenal – 4-3-3?  I believe Bruce will make wholesale changes which he could do: Jak

Elmo Mcguire Bruce Tymon

Meyler Hudd Powell

Aluko Diomande Maloney

He could put more  of last nights team in to show they might have to work for their league place: Jak

Elmo McGuire Bruce Robbo

Meyler Livermore Diame

Maloney Powell Clucas If he sticks to the Arsenal 3 at the back I would play Hudd as part of back 3 to give us two players him and McGuire that are comfortable carrying the ball forward:

Jak

McGuire Bruce Hudd

Elmo Meyler   Diame/Powell  Clucas  Robbo/Tymon

Maloney Diomande

For the next league game you need to see how the cup team performs, but I would already have inked in Hayden, and decided to play two genuine forwards.

I think having all the players fit and at his disposal is causing confusion and his substitutions seem premeditated – Huddlestone last name in the starting XI first one taken off!  With the squad we have we should be ten points clear by now, but for all the names and experience we have they are not always being used wisely.  Over the years I have heard him say we were a bit leggy having not freshened the team up for a midweek game, that is poor management, with the number of fit players we have we could have a midweek team and a weekend team both capable of beating the rest of the division!

I don’t think last night was the end of the world, but there is a genuine risk that by this time next week we will be five or six points of the automatic promotion places and playing catch up. 

 We have a reasonable run in, but our big name players need to start putting in regular big performances.

[midelifeangst]

Police Crime Commissioners

The Police Crime Commissioner elections were a serious embarrassment for the government.  It was a self inflicted wound that they should have been able to see coming commentators and public alike could see it coming.

There were a number of reasons for the disaster:

1.  The government decision not to fund flyers for candidates.  We don't have the electoral approach of the states, thank goodness where the deepest pockets fund the better campaigns.  However to turn up at the ballot box and vote you need to have some idea of who is standing.  It is naive beyond belief to expect an electorate many of whom feel disenfranchised anyway to go and research the candidates for their area on line.

2. The lack of a coherent explanation of why PCCs would be better for law and order than the current police advisory boards.  Yes the PCC can ultimately sack the Chief Constable, but surely that sort of power would be better vested in some form of committee.  

3. The work of the advisory boards has been largely invisible.  Generally we don't consider how a body like the police works from an organisational perspective.  We are concerned about what effects us - bobbies on the beat, crimes, anti social behaviour.  No a big thrust of the PCC role allegedly is about priorities and managing budgets.  Those responsibilities exist now wherever they are vested how does the electorate know which of the candidates is the best manager?  Accountability is great, but this could have been achieved by changing terms and focus of PAB's.

4. The fact that many of the candidates have a political party alongside their name means that the PCC manager (or CEO if you will) will not necessarily be making decisions always in the best interests of the community he/she represents.  Those that have a political party alongside their name will always be suspected of making decisions that have a political influence behind them whether they do or not.  This fact that all parties put up candidates for the PCC posts has politicised the police in the eyes of the electorate.  There have been a lot of politicians convicted of creams in the past through expenses, election fraud and so on.  It is vital that the Police are perceived to be independent from politics.

5. Trialling the use of the second preference vote on a trial basis seemed to be part of the reason for the elections.  This at least means we are spared two old establishment figures from being elected - Prescott in Humberside and Mates in Hampshire.  Changing the normal first past past the post rules is worth looking at, but with such a low turnout what is learned from it?

I am not radically against organisational change, but this seems a white elephant to spend so much money on these elections whilst failing to conduct them properly when the overall public concern about the police are the cuts that they face.  The police are not perfect and there are ongoing investigations into failures that have been well publicised in Rochdale, Hillsborough and others, but these are under separate scrutiny.  

As with the changes to the Health Service it smacks of a change recommended by consultants who have never actually worked in the business.  The government itself would appear to have it's own problems with focus and priorities.